6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Integrating environmental considerations in digital health technology assessment and procurement: Stakeholders’ perspectives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Digital health technologies (DHTs) are promoted as means to reduce the environmental impact of healthcare systems. However, a growing literature is shedding light on the highly polluting nature of the digital industry and how it exacerbates health inequalities. Thus, the environmental footprint of DHTs should be considered when assessing their overall value to healthcare systems. The objectives of this article are to: (1) explore stakeholders’ perspectives on integrating the environmental impacts of DHTs in assessment and procurement practices; (2) identify the factors enabling or constraining the operationalisation of such a change; and (3) encourage a constructive dialogue on how environmental issues fit within healthcare systems’ push for more DHTs.

          Methods

          Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders involved in DHTs in a large Canadian academic healthcare centre. Data were collected and analysed through a mixed deductive-inductive process using a framework derived from diffusion of innovations theories.

          Results

          The integration of the environmental impact of DHTs in assessment and procurement is contingent upon key micro-meso-macrosystemic factors that either enable or constrain changes in practices and processes. Innovation (micro) factors include stakeholders’ recognition of the environmental issue and the extent to which it is feasible for them to address the environmental impact of DHTs. Organisational (meso) factors include the organisation's culture, leadership, policies, and practices, as well as the expertise and professional skillsets available. Finally, external (macro) factors include political and regulatory (e.g., national strategy, laws, standards, norms), economic (e.g., business models, public procurement), and professional and scientific factors (e.g., evidence, methodologies, clinical guidelines).

          Conclusion

          Considering the environmental impact of DHTs depends on micro-meso-macrosystemic factors involving a variety of stakeholders and levels of governance, sometimes with divergent or even antagonistic objectives and expectations. It highlights the importance of better understanding the complexity inherent in the environmental shift in healthcare.

          Related collections

          Most cited references116

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.

            This article summarizes an extensive literature review addressing the question, How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? It considers both content (defining and measuring the diffusion of innovation in organizations) and process (reviewing the literature in a systematic and reproducible way). This article discusses (1) a parsimonious and evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations, (2) clear knowledge gaps where further research should be focused, and (3) a robust and transferable methodology for systematically reviewing health service policy and management. Both the model and the method should be tested more widely in a range of contexts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises

              For the Chinese, French, German, and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Digit Health
                Digit Health
                DHJ
                spdhj
                Digital Health
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2055-2076
                6 December 2023
                Jan-Dec 2023
                : 9
                : 20552076231219113
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, Ringgold 5622, universityUniversity of Montreal; , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [2 ]Center for Public Health Research of the University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [3 ]Sherpa University Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ringgold 4440, universityLaval University; , Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ringgold 4440, universityLaval University; , Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
                Author notes
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally.

                [*]Hassane Alami, Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy & Center for Public Health Research, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Branch Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada. Email: hassane.alami@ 123456umontreal.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-7693
                Article
                10.1177_20552076231219113
                10.1177/20552076231219113
                10704940
                38074337
                cbbe4be7-51a6-4655-89d5-71f65faf9169
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 10 July 2023
                : 20 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: HA was supported by the In Fieri research programme, led by PL, and the International Observatory on the Societal Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies (Canada).;
                Award ID: N/A
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                ts19
                January-December 2023

                digital health,public procurement,health technology assessment,healthcare system,sustainability,climate change,environment

                Comments

                Comment on this article