Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33023575›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2020

Typology of organizational innovation components: building blocks to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations.

Mélanie Ann Smithman, Sarah Descôteaux, Émilie Dionne, Lauralie Richard, Mylaine Breton, Vladimir Khanassov, Jeannie L Haggerty, IMPACT research team

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mélanie Ann SmithmanCentre de recherche Charles-Le Moyne - Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean sur les innovations en santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Québec, Canada.
Sarah DescôteauxSt. Mary's Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Émilie DionneSt. Mary's Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lauralie RichardDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Mylaine BretonDepartment of Community Health, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.
Vladimir KhanassovDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jeannie L HaggertyDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. jeannie.haggerty@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2473-3861
IMPACT research team
McGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CAUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

CIHR TTF-130729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchieving equity of access to primary healthcare requires organizations to implement innovations tailored to the specific needs and abilities of vulnerable populations. However, designing pro-vulnerable innovations is challenging without knowledge of the range of possible innovations tailored to vulnerable populations' needs. To better support decision-makers, we aimed to develop a typology of pro-vulnerable organizational innovation components - akin to "building blocks" that could be combined in different ways into new complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to improve access to primary healthcare.

methodsTo develop the typology, we used data from a previously conducted a) scoping review (2000-2014, searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, citation tracking, n = 90 articles selected), and b) environmental scan (2014, online survey via social networks, n = 240 innovations). We conducted a typological analysis of the data. Our initial typology yielded 48 components, classified according to accessibility dimensions from the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework. The initial typology was then field-tested for relevance and usability by health system stakeholders and refined from 2014 to 2018 (e.g., combined similar components, excluded non-organizational components).

resultsThe selected articles (n = 90 studies) and survey responses (n = 240 innovations) were mostly from the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK. Innovations targeted populations with various vulnerabilities (e.g., low income, chronic illness, Indigenous, homeless, migrants, refugees, ethnic minorities, uninsured, marginalized groups, mental illness, etc.). Our final typology had 18 components of organizational innovations, which principally addressed Availability & Accommodation (7/18), Approachability (6/18), and Acceptability (3/18). Components included navigation & information, community health worker, one-stop-shop, case management, group visits, defraying costs, primary healthcare brokerage, etc.

conclusionsThis typology offers a comprehensive menu of potential components that can help inform the design of pro-vulnerable organizational innovations. Component classification according to the accessibility dimensions of the Patient-Centred Accessibility Framework is useful to help target access needs. Components can be combined into complex innovations or added to existing organizational processes to meet the access needs of vulnerable populations in specific contexts.

Indexed as

Organizational InnovationVulnerable PopulationsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPrimary Health CareHealth services accessibilityMultiple classification analysesOrganizational innovationPrimary healthcareVulnerable population

Identifiers

PMID33023575
PMCPMC7541234
OpenAlexW3092420795

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.