Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27239275›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2016

Promoting development and uptake of health innovations: The Nose to Tail Tool.

Archna Gupta, Cathy Thorpe, Onil Bhattacharyya, Merrick Zwarenstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Archna GuptaCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Cathy ThorpeCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Onil BhattacharyyaWomen's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

decision makersend usersHealth innovationimplementationpilot testresearchersscale upstakeholders

Identifiers

PMID27239275
PMCPMC4863676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.