SynthesisBMJ innovations2021
Are disruptive innovations recognised in the healthcare literature? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ innovations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluations of digital public health interventions in the WHO Southeast Asia Region: a systematic literature review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies to Facilitate Service Utilization Among Youth at Risk for HIV: A Randomized Controlled Trial (ATN 149).AIDS and behavior · 2025Trial
- Acceptance of Smart Contracts in Patients Receiving Primary Care: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Criterion-Related Validity and Reliability of a Measurement Tool for Medical Doctors' Work-Related Quality of Life in Japan.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Toward hospital resilience: a qualitative study on the identification of hospital shocks during disruption era in Indonesia.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Funding Opportunities Designed to Promote Antiracist Change Across a Health Sciences University.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Technical Innovation in Critical Care in a World of Constraints: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: perspectives and review of a revolutionary development in nuclear medicine based on clinical experience in over 7000 patients.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
- Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Review
- Access to Care: End-to-End Digital Response for COVID-19 Care Delivery.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2022Article
- A Narrative Review of Innovative Responses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020.International journal of public health · 2022Review
- Review
- Developing a reporting guideline for artificial intelligence-centred diagnostic test accuracy studies: the STARD-AI protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study aims to conduct a systematic review to characterise the spread and use of the concept of 'disruptive innovation' within the healthcare sector. We aim to categorise references to the concept over time, across geographical regions and across prespecified healthcare domains. From this, we further aim to critique and challenge the sector-specific use of the concept. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care, and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from inception to August 2019 for references pertaining to disruptive innovations within the healthcare industry. The heterogeneity of the articles precluded a meta-analysis, and neither quality scoring of articles nor risk of bias analyses were required. 245 articles that detailed perceived disruptive innovations within the health sector were identified. The disruptive innovations were categorised into seven domains: basic science (19.2%), device (12.2%), diagnostics (4.9%), digital health (21.6%), education (5.3%), processes (17.6%) and technique (19.2%). The term has been used with increasing frequency annually and is predominantly cited in North American (78.4%) and European (15.2%) articles. The five most cited disruptive innovations in healthcare are 'omics' technologies, mobile health applications, telemedicine, health informatics and retail clinics. The concept 'disruptive innovation' has diffused into the healthcare industry. However, its use remains inconsistent and the recognition of disruption is obscured by other types of innovation. The current definition does not accommodate for prospective scouting of disruptive innovations, a likely hindrance to policy makers. Redefining disruptive innovation within the healthcare sector is therefore crucial for prospectively identifying cost-effective innovations.
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.