ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Beyond Barriers and Facilitators: A Qualitative Study of the Interests Driving Physician-Led Innovation.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Barriers and Facilitators: A Qualitative Study of the Interests Driving Physician-Led Innovation.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleClinical innovation-where physicians develop and use novel interventions that differ significantly from standard practice and that have not been shown to be sufficiently safe or effective for regular use in healthcare systems-has the potential to transform patient care and drive medical advancement. However, it is not without risk. It is important, therefore, that policymakers and healthcare institutions develop strategies to encourage responsible clinical innovation. For these strategies to be effective, they need to be based on a comprehensive understanding of the factors driving physicians' development and use of innovative interventions. While research has provided important insights into contextual barriers and facilitators, individual factors, particularly physicians' interests, remain underexplored. AIMS AND
objectivesThe aims of this qualitative study were to investigate the factors that drive and deter clinical innovation in diverse medical specialties and to examine whether these factors differ significantly between specialties.
methodThirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian physicians from surgery, reproductive medicine, and cancer care.
resultsPhysicians' interests (e.g., obligations to patients and personal financial concerns) were perceived to play an important role in driving their use of innovative interventions, along with individual traits and contextual factors. There were also significant differences between specialties-with fertility specialists and surgeons more strongly emphasizing financial and commercial interests as key drivers of clinical innovation than oncologists.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that while addressing structural barriers to clinical innovation at the health system level remains important, policymakers must also give attention to the diverse interests of physician-innovators. Understanding these interests, the ways in which they align and conflict, and which are most prominent across different specialties, will enable policymakers and healthcare institutions to develop targeted strategies to encourage physician-led innovation and ensure it is responsible.
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.