CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthInnovation, Technology, and Society

Characterizing attributes of innovation of technologies for healthcare: a systematic review

Open access
Syeed, M. Sakil, Poudel, Nabin, Ngorsuraches, Surachat, Veettil, Sajesh K., Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn·2022·Journal of Medical Economics
DOI 10.1080/13696998.2022.2140591
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Characterizing and evaluating the holistic value of innovative healthcare technologies (e.g. treatments, services) constitutes a crucial goal to maximize limited resources. However, the characteristics of innovation have not been well identified. This review aims to describe the characteristics of healthcare innovation. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic search using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit from inception to July 2022. Articles were included if they described innovation or the characteristics of innovation of the technologies in healthcare. Characteristics or definitions of innovation directly or indirectly described as innovation were extracted from the included articles. Two independent reviewers then conceptualized the identified characteristics of innovation to generate innovation attributes in healthcare. RESULTS: In total, 103 articles were included in this review. Eight attributes describing innovation, i.e. novelty, step change, substantial benefits, an improvement over existing technologies, convenience and/or adherence, added value, acceptable cost, and uncounted benefits, were conceptualized. Most of the identified innovation attributes were based on the researchers' perspective. CONCLUSIONS: This study conceptualized innovation attributes in healthcare based on the characteristics of healthcare innovation as defined in the literature. Further research is warranted to obtain a complete understanding of the perspectives of researchers and other stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, healthcare payers, and the pharmaceutical industry, on recognizing innovation in healthcare.KEY POINTSThis is the first systematic review to conceptualize attributes of healthcare innovation.We conceptualized eight attributes describing innovation, i.e. novelty, step change, substantial benefits, an improvement over existing technologies, convenience and/or adherence, added value, acceptable cost, and uncounted benefits based on the similar concept.In existing literature, patients' and caregivers' perspectives were less frequently found to describe the innovation attributes.Future research is needed to identify, measure, and value various stakeholders, including patients' and caregivers' perspectives on healthcare innovation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13696998.2022.2140591

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many factors identified in our analysis reflect established findings on implementation of other innovations and NASSS framework constructs.

    “Many factors identified in our analysis—including context (at system, organization, and service levels), leadership and engagement approaches, technological considerations, use of data, and local capacity and resourcing (e.g., finance, people)–reflect established findings on implementation of other innovations, digital or otherwise,21,27, 28, 29, 30 and NASSS framework constructs.20”

    From Procurement and early deployment of artificial intelligence tools for chest diagnostics in NHS services in England: a rapid, mixed method evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion and Conclusions (pages unavailable) identify attributes used to recognize innovative healthcare technologies, including novelty, benefits and acceptable cost. They do not address whether the cited factors—such as leadership, data use and local capacity—are established findings about implementing innovations. Searches for implementation factors, leadership and resources found no passage establishing that link. The separate NASSS-framework clause is attributed to citation 20, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Aronson JK. Something new every day: defining innovation and innovativeness in drug therapy. J Ambul Care Manage. 2008;31(1):65–68.
  2. Herzlinger RE. Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harv Bus Rev. 2006;84(5):58–66, 156.
  3. Charlton V, Rid A. Innovation as a value in healthcare priority-setting: the UK experience. Soc Justice Res. 2019;32(2):208–238.
  4. Fortinguerra F, Tafuri G, Trotta F, et al. Using GRADE methodology to assess innovation of new medicinal products in Italy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(1):93–105.
  5. Torbica A, Tarricone R, Drummond M. Does the approach to economic evaluation in health care depend on culture, values, and institutional context? Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:769–774.
  6. Ciani O, Armeni P, Boscolo PR, et al. De innovatione: the concept of innovation for medical technologies and its implications for healthcare policy-making. Health Policy Technol. 2016;5(1):47–64.
  7. de Solà-Morales O, Cunningham D, Flume M, et al. Defining innovation with respect to new medicines: a systematic review from a payer perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):224–240.
  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  9. Joseph ML, Huber DL, Bair H, et al. A typology of innovations in nursing. J Nurs Adm. 2019;49(7–8):389–395.
  10. Karampli E, Souliotis K, Polyzos N, et al. Why do physicians prescribe new antidiabetic drugs? A qualitative study in the Greek healthcare setting. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9(2):166–173.
  11. Billaux M, Borget I, Prognon P, et al. Innovative medical devices and hospital decision making: a study comparing the views of hospital pharmacists and physicians. Aust Health Rev. 2016;40(3):257–261.
  12. Sheard L, Jackson C, Lawton R. How is success achieved by individuals innovating for patient safety and quality in the NHS? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–9.
  13. Nicod E, Brigham KB, Durand-Zaleski I, et al. Dealing with uncertainty and accounting for social value judgments in assessments of orphan drugs: evidence from four European countries. Value Health. 2017;20(7):919–926.
  14. McGloughlin EK, Anglim P, Keogh I, et al. Innovation for the future of Irish MedTech industry: retrospective qualitative review of impact of BioInnovate Ireland’s clinical fellows. BMJ Innov. 2018;4(1):32–38.
  15. Jonker CJ, van den Berg HM, Kwa MS, et al. Registries supporting new drug applications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(12):1451–1457.
  16. Lakdawalla D, Malani A, Reif J. The insurance value of medical innovation. J Public Econ. 2017;145:94–102.
  17. Hamilton BH, Hincapié A, Miller RA, et al. Innovation and diffusion of medical treatment. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018.
  18. Dhar M, Griffin M, Hollin I, et al. Innovation spaces: six strategies to inform health care. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2012;31(2):166–177.
  19. Ferlie E, Nicolini D, Ledger J, et al. NHS top managers, knowledge exchange and leadership: the early development of academic health science networks–a mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5(17):1–204.
  20. Monia M. Value of innovation for hematologic malignancies. J Med Econ. 2016;19(5):487–489.
  21. Miller KL, Lanthier M. Trends in orphan new molecular entities, 1983–2014: half were first in class, and rare cancers were the most frequent target. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(3):464–470.
  22. Swinney DC, Lee JA. Recent advances in phenotypic drug discovery. F1000Res. 2020;9:944.
  23. Gashaw I, Ellinghaus P, Sommer A, et al. What makes a good drug target? Drug Discov Today. 2011;16(23–24):1037–1043.
  24. Petykó ZI, Inotai A, Holtorf A-P, et al. Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;20(3):229–236.
  25. Roubou I, Alexopoulou DK. The various shapes of innovation. Forum Clin Oncol. 2015;6(4):12–22.
  26. Bryan S, Lee H, Mitton C. ‘Innovation’ in health care coverage decisions: all talk and no substance? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):57–60.
  27. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137–156.
  28. Consoli D, Mina A. An evolutionary perspective on health innovation systems. J Evol Econ. 2009;19(2):297–319.
  29. Ellner AL, Stout S, Sullivan EE, et al. Health systems innovation at academic health centers: Leading in a new era of health care delivery. Acad Med. 2015;90(7):872–880.
  30. Malik NN. Controlling the cost of innovative cancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(9):550–552.
  31. Hübner U. What are complex eHealth innovations and how do you measure them? Methods Inf Med. 2015;54(4):319–327.
  32. Pammolli F, Riccaboni M. Market structure and drug innovation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(1):48–50.
  33. Quinn C, Palmer S, Bruns J, et al. Progressive innovation in oncology: valuing outcomes beyond survival. Value in Health. 2015;18(7):A482.
  34. Garrett MD, Workman P. Discovering novel chemotherapeutic drugs for the third millennium. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(14):2010–2030.
  35. Conti RM. Economic value of new treatments for depression. PhD dissertation. Harvard University; 2006. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6395544026005408420&hl=en&as_sdt=5,45(open in a new window)
  36. Costa LS. Innovation in healthcare services: notes on the limits of field research. Cad Saude Publica. 2016;32:e00151915.
  37. Chagpar AB. Innovation in surgery: from imagination to implementation. Am J Surg. 2011;202(6):641–645.
  38. Biddiscombe MF, Usmani OS. Is there room for further innovation in inhaled therapy for airways disease? Breathe (Sheff). 2018;14(3):216–224.
  39. Chan TY, Hamilton BH, Papageorge NW. Health, risky behaviour and the value of medical innovation for infectious disease. Rev Econ Stud. 2016;83(4):1465–1510.
  40. Bhatti Y, Taylor A, Harris M, et al. Global lessons in frugal innovation to improve health care delivery in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(11):1912–1919.
  41. Papageorge NW. Why medical innovation is valuable: Health, human capital, and the labor market. Quant Econ. 2016;7(3):671–725.
  42. Zaim R, Tran L, Groen H, et al. ‘DE NOVO’Quantification of genotype-directed therapy with afatinib in metastatic lung cancer. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A641.
  43. Rezvani M, Hesari J, Peighambardoust SH, et al. Development and characterization of nanostructured pharmacosomal mesophases: an innovative delivery system for bioactive peptides. Adv Pharm Bull. 2018;8(4):609–615.
  44. Graziottin A. Safety, efficacy and patient acceptability of the combined estrogen and progestin transdermal contraceptive patch: a review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008;2:357–367.
  45. Stephanie W, Hill C, Ricks ML, et al. The scope and impact of mobile health clinics in the United States: a literature review. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):1–12.
  46. Balducci AG, Magosso E, Colombo G, et al. From tablets to pharmaceutical nanotechnologies: Innovation in drug delivery strategies for the administration of antimalarial drugs. J Drug Delivery Sci Technol. 2016;32:167–173.
  47. Moreira M, Sarraguça M. How can oral paediatric formulations be improved? A challenge for the XXI century. Int J Pharm. 2020;590:119905.
  48. Belloso WH. On innovation. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(5):1068–1075.
  49. Henshall C, Schuller T. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):353–359.
  50. Kelly CJ, Young AJ. Promoting innovation in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2017;4(2):121–125.
  51. Hartmann J, Schüßler‐Lenz M, Bondanza A, et al. Clinical development of CAR T cells—challenges and opportunities in translating innovative treatment concepts. EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9(9):1183–1197.
  52. Park TS, Rosenberg SA, Morgan RA. Treating cancer with genetically engineered T cells. Trends Biotechnol. 2011;29(11):550–557.
  53. Bell SC, Mall MA, Gutierrez H, et al. The future of cystic fibrosis care: a global perspective. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(1):65–124.
  54. Martin V, Samaan KH, Aurora S, et al. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine: a narrative review. Adv Ther. 2020;37(5):2034–2049.
  55. Robinson M. New-generation proton pump inhibitors: overcoming the limitations of early-generation agents. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13:S43–S47.
  56. Ye Z, Chen J, Xuan Z, et al. Subcutaneous bortezomib might be standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019;13:1707–1716.
  57. Bell E, Neri M, Steuten L. Towards a broader assessment of value in vaccines: the BRAVE way forward. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022;20(1):105–117.
  58. Harris M, Bhatti Y, Prime M, et al. Low-cost innovation in healthcare: what you find depends on where you look. J R Soc Med. 2018;111(2):47–50.
  59. Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP, Jr, et al. Defining elements of value in health care- a health economics approach: an ISPOR Special Task Force report [3]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):131–139.
  60. Hofmann S, Branner J, Misra A, et al. A review of current approaches to defining and valuing innovation in health technology assessment. Value Health. 2021;24(12):1773–1783.
  61. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(1):123–152.
  62. Tutone M, Villa F, Addis A, et al. How do drug regulatory bodies deal with potential innovative therapies? Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(1):195–199.
  63. Rejon-Parrilla JC, Espin J, Epstein D. How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment. Health Econ Rev. 2022;12(1):1–11.
  64. Basch E, Aronson N, Berg A, et al. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1636–1640.
  65. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV, et al. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. Jama. 2014;312(15):1513–1514.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syeed, M. S., Poudel, N., Ngorsuraches, S., Veettil, S. K., & Chaiyakunapruk, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Auburn University (US)
Corresponding author
Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Medical Economics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
1158-1166
ISSN
  • 1369-6998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-837X
DOI
10.1080/13696998.2022.2140591
OpenAlex
W4307425101
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Technology, and Society
Keywords
healthcare innovation, innovation characteristics, new technologies, step change, value addition, patient and caregiver perspectives, stakeholder perspectives, innovation value, resource allocation
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review