Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38365218›Full record

ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024

[Does the Innovation Fund Improve Healthcare Provision? A Critical Assessment of the Status of Implementing Successful Innovation Fund Projects into Healthcare Practice].

Christina Lindemann, Michaela Schunk, Laura Keßler, Thomas Bierbaum, Michael Eichinger, Erik Farin-Glattacker, Max Geraedts, Martin Härter, Heike Heytens, Andreas Meusch and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Christina Lindemann *Center for Health Care Research & Public Health, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-1252-1983
Michaela Schunk *Fakultät für Angewandte Gesundheits- und Sozialwissenschaften, Technische Hochschule Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1200-1903
Laura KeßlerGeschäftsstelle, Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung (DNVF) e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Thomas BierbaumGeschäftsstelle, Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung (DNVF) e.V., Berlin, Germany.
Michael EichingerZentrum für Präventivmedizin und Digitale Gesundheit, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0064-7640
Erik Farin-GlattackerInstitut für Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Otto-von-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6867-0316
Max GeraedtsCenter for Health Care Research & Public Health, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5596-6246
Martin HärterInstitut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7443-9890
Heike HeytensInstitut für Sozialmedizin und Gesundheitssystemforschung, Otto-von-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Andreas MeuschHamburg, Germany.
Olaf SchofferZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6922-7148
Neeltje van den BergInstitut für Community Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6965-0544
Horst Christian VollmarMedizinische Fakultät, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0117-7188
Milena von KutzlebenAbteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Fakultät für Medizin und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8443-2593
Wolfgang HoffmannInstitut für Community Medicine, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6359-8797
Jochen SchmittZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0264-0960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSince 2015, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)'s Innovation Fund has been supporting projects in health services research and new health service models ("Neue Versorgungsformen", NVF). By the end of 2022, 211 projects in the NVF category had been funded. A key objective is the transfer of successful projects into standard care. This article analyzes previous projects regarding their incorporation into routine care based on transfer recommendations of the Innovation Fund Committee ("Innovationsausschuss" IA).

methodDescriptive analysis of all projects completed by August 1, 2023 with transfer recommendations in the "NVF" funding stream. Presentation by topic, project duration, time until IA transfer decision, categorization, and number of institutions and organizations (recipients) addressed per project, their feedback published on the G-BA website, response rates per recipient group, and a content classification and interpretation of exemplary feedback. Recommendations based on the results and their discussion in an expert workshop.

resultsOut of 57 NVF projects, 17 had a transfer recommendation. A total of 57 feedback responses were received from a total of 431 recipients addressed by the IA across these projects. Response rates varied significantly. One-third of inquiries to the G-BA and its member organizations received a response (31%), while only every fifth inquiry to federal states (18%) and professional societies (18%) got a response. Less than one in ten inquiries to the Federal Ministry of Health (8%), administrative bodies (6%), and the German Medical Association (0%) received a response. Project-specific feedback within a recipient group was often contradictory or limited to regional scope. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe transfer process reveals significant structural and procedural obstacles regarding the incorporation of projects evaluated as successful into routine health care. To ensure that funding from the innovation fund is most effectively used, there needs to be a realistic chance of successful transfer of positive project outcomes into routine care. The DNVF recommends stronger involvement of rule-competent institutions, mandatory publication of responses, structured moderation of the transfer process, expanding types of selective contracts, financing of implementation phases and of studies drawing on results across successful NVF projects.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDiffusion of InnovationGermanyHealth Services ResearchQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID38365218
PMCPMC13561640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.