Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36779272›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

A decision-support tool for funding health innovations at a tertiary academic medical center.

Yiying Cai, Nuraini Nazeha, Shamira Perera, Alexandre H Thiery, Michaël J A Girard, Chen E Lee, Weiwei Hong, Nicholas Graves

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yiying CaiProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0502-9123
Nuraini NazehaProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Shamira PereraSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Alexandre H ThieryDepartment of Statistics and Applied Probability, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Michaël J A GirardSingapore Eye Research Institute (SERI), Singapore, Singapore.
Chen E LeeOffice for Service Transformation, SingHealth, Singapore, Singapore.
Weiwei HongOffice for Service Transformation, SingHealth, Singapore, Singapore.
Nicholas GravesProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report the processes used to design and implement an assessment tool to inform funding decisions for competing health innovations in a tertiary hospital.

methodsWe designed an assessment tool for health innovation proposals with three components: "value to the institution," "novelty," and "potential for adoption and scaling." The "value to the institution" component consisted of twelve weighted value attributes identified from the host institution's annual report; weights were allocated based on a survey of the hospital's leaders. The second and third components consisted of open-ended questions on "novelty" and "barriers to implementation" to support further dialogue. Purposive literature review was performed independently by two researchers for each assessment. The assessment tool was piloted during an institutional health innovation funding cycle.

resultsWe used 17 days to evaluate ten proposals. The completed assessments were shared with an independent group of panellists, who selected five projects for funding. Proposals with the lowest scores for "value to the institution" had less perceived impact on the patient-related value attributes of "access," "patient centeredness," "health outcomes," "prevention," and "safety." Similar innovations were reported in literature in seven proposals; potential barriers to implementation were identified in six proposals. We included a worked example to illustrate the assessment process.

conclusionsWe developed an assessment tool that is aligned with local institutional priorities. Our tool can augment the decision-making process when funding health innovation projects. The tool can be adapted by others facing similar challenges of trying to choose the best health innovations to fund.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersHumansSurveys and Questionnaireshealthcare evaluationhealthcare systemshealth technology assessment

Identifiers

PMID36779272
PMCPMC11574547

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.