ArticleF1000Research2016
Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Institutionalizing Innovation: From Pilot to Scale for Co-Packaged Oral Rehydration Salts and Zinc-A Case Study in Zambia.Global health, science and practice · 2024Article
- The Health Innovation Impact Checklist: a tool to improve the development and reporting of impact models for global health innovations.Global health action · 2022Article
- Development of a model of interprofessional support interventions to enhance brace adherence in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a qualitative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Building resilience in oncology teams: Protocol for a realist evaluation of multiple cases.PloS one · 2022Article
- Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Article
- What Makes for a Successful Digital Health Integrated Program of Work? Lessons Learnt and Recommendations From the Melbourne Children's Campus.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Translational health technology and system schemes: enhancing the dynamics of health informatics.Health information science and systems · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review.Annals of family medicine · 2020Article
- Identifying and Overcoming Policy-Level Barriers to the Implementation of Digital Health Innovation: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Collaborative governance in the Quebec Cancer Network: a realist evaluation of emerging mechanisms of institutionalization, multi-level governance, and value creation using a longitudinal multiple case study design.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- The pitfalls of scaling up evidence-based interventions in health.Global health action · 2019Article
- Article
- An Instrument to Measure Maturity of Integrated Care: A First Validation Study.International journal of integrated care · 2018Article
- Optimizing clinical and organizational practice in cancer survivor transitions between specialized oncology and primary care teams: a realist evaluation of multiple case studies.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool.F1000Research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Health sector management is increasingly complex as new health technologies, treatments, and innovative service delivery strategies are developed. Many of these innovations are implemented prematurely, or fail to be implemented at scale, resulting in substantial wasted resources. Methods A scoping review was conducted to identify articles that described the scale up process conceptually or that described an instance in which a healthcare innovation was scaled up. We define scale up as the expansion and extension of delivery or access to an innovation for all end users in a jurisdiction who will benefit from it. Results Sixty nine articles were eligible for review. Frequently described stages in the innovation process and contextual issues that influence progress through each stage were mapped. 16 stages were identified: 12 deliberation and 4 action stages. Included papers suggest that innovations progress through stages of maturity and the uptake of innovation depends on the innovation aligning with the interests of 3 critical stakeholder groups (innovators, end users and the decision makers) and is also influenced by 3 broader contexts (social and physical environment, the health system, and the regulatory, political and economic environment). The 16 stages form the rows of the Nose to Tail Tool (NTT) grid and the 6 contingency factors form columns. The resulting stage-by-issue grid consists of 72 cells, each populated with cell-specific questions, prompts and considerations from the reviewed literature. Conclusion We offer a tool that helps stakeholders identify the stage of maturity of their innovation, helps facilitate deliberative discussions on the key considerations for each major stakeholder group and the major contextual barriers that the innovation faces. We believe the NTT will help to identify potential problems that the innovation will face and facilitates early modification, before large investments are made in a potentially flawed solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.