ArticleBMC health services research2024
Innovation bundles and platforms - a qualitative analysis of health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth systems underwent substantial changes to respond to COVID-19. Learning from the successes and failures of health system COVID-19 responses may help us understand how future health service responses can be designed to be both effective and sustainable. This study aims to identify the role that innovation played in crafting health service responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted online, exploring 19 health professionals' experiences in responding to COVID-19 in a large State health system in Australia. The data were collected from April to September 2022 and analysed utilising constant comparative analysis. The degree of innovation in health service responses was assessed by comparing them to pre-pandemic services using 5 categories adopted from the IMPISCO (Investigators, Methods, Population, Intervention, Setting, Comparators and Outcomes) framework, which classifies interventional fidelity as: 1/ Identical: No differences are found between health services; 2/ Substitution with alternatives that perform the same function, 3/ In-class replacement with elements that delivers roughly the same functionality, 4/ Augmentation with new functions, 5/ Creation of new elements. Services were decomposed into bundles and fidelity labels were assigned to individual bundle elements.
resultsNew services were typically created by reconfiguring existing ones rather than being created de novo. The presence of pre-existing infrastructure (foundational technologies) was seen as critical in mounting fast health service responses. Absence of infrastructure was associated with delays and impaired system responses.
conclusionsThe need to reconfigure rapidly and use infrastructure to support this suggests we reconceive health services as a platform (a general-purpose service upon which other elements can be added for specific functions), where a common core service (such as a primary care practice) can be extended by adding specialised functions using mediators which facilitate the connection (such as virtual service capabilities). Innovation can be costly and time consuming in crises, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, innovations were typically patched together from pre-existing services. The notion of platforms seems a promising way to prepare the health system for future shocks.
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.