Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27381466›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2016

That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study.

Matthew Harris, Emily Weisberger, Diana Silver, Viva Dadwal, James Macinko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quid Pro Quo? A Critical Perspective on the Global Flow and Spread of Health Innovation.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Matthew HarrisInstitute of Global Health Innovation, St Marys Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 INY and The School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstans Road, London, W6 8RP, UK. m.harris@imperial.ac.uk.
Emily WeisbergerCommonwealth Fund, 1 East 75th Street, New York, 10021, USA.
Diana SilverDepartment of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health, New York University, 411 Lafayette Street, New York, 10003, USA.
Viva DadwalJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
James MacinkoUCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Center for Health Sciences, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. South, Room 31-235B, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are significant differences in the meaning and use of the term 'Reverse Innovation' between industry circles, where the term originated, and health policy circles where the term has gained traction. It is often conflated with other popularized terms such as Frugal Innovation, Co-development and Trickle-up Innovation. Compared to its use in the industrial sector, this conceptualization of Reverse Innovation describes a more complex, fragmented process, and one with no particular institution in charge. It follows that the way in which the term 'Reverse Innovation', specifically, is understood and used in the healthcare space is worthy of examination.

methodsBetween September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in the Reverse Innovation space in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also informants' experience and understanding of the term Reverse Innovation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.

resultsWe describe three main themes derived from the interviews. First, 'Reverse Innovation,' the term, has marketing currency to convince policy-makers that may be wary of learning from or adopting innovations from unexpected sources, in this case Low-Income Countries. Second, the term can have the opposite effect - by connoting frugality, or innovation arising from necessity as opposed to good leadership, the proposed innovation may be associated with poor quality, undermining potential translation into other contexts. Finally, the term 'Reverse Innovation' is a paradox - it breaks down preconceptions of the directionality of knowledge and learning, whilst simultaneously reinforcing it.

conclusionsWe conclude that this term means different things to different people and should be used strategically, and with some caution, depending on the audience.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationInternationalityKnowledgeHealth PolicyHumansQualitative ResearchUnited StatesDeveloping countriesDiffusion of innovationEvidence based medicine

Identifiers

PMID27381466
PMCPMC4932777

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.