To What Extent Can Digital Health Technologies Comply With the Principles of Responsible Innovation? Practiceand Policy-Oriented Research Insights Regarding an Organisational and Systemic Issue

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

2 Center for Public Health Research of the University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

3 Institute for Data Valorization (IVADO), Montreal, QC, Canada

4 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

5 Université of Quebec at Rimouski, Levy, QC, Canada

6 Executive Office & Research Centre of The University of Montreal Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada

7 Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Montreal Business School (HEC), Montreal, QC, Canada

8 Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada

9 VITAM Research Centre on Sustainable Health, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada

Abstract

Background 
Digital health technologies (DHTs) have expanded exponentially since the COVID-19 crisis and have prompted questions about their impact across all levels of health systems. Because health organisations and systems play a central role in the success or failure of the transition to more equitable and sustainable societies, the concept of Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH), focused on aligning the processes and outcomes of innovation with societal values, is gaining interest in research, policy, and practice. This study aims to explore enablers and constraints to the development, procurement and/or utilisation of responsible DHTs in health organisations.
 
Methods 
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned with the development, procurement, and/or utilisation of DHTs in a large Canadian academic health centre. Data were thematically analysed through a mixed deductive-inductive process using the RIH framework.
 
Results 
Our findings highlight that the consideration of RIH principles in the development, procurement, and/or utilisation of DHTs depends mainly on organisational and systemic factors and conditions, namely: (1) the presence of an organisational culture that promotes RIH in its innovation-related practices and processes; (2) availability of material and financial resources as well as expertise in certain fields (eg, environmental sustainability); (3) the evolution of health technology assessment (HTA) practices to include other dimensions beyond effectiveness, safety, and costs; (4) the scope of the regulatory and legal frameworks that govern the approval and use of DHTs; and (5) the role of the market (eg, venture capital) in the design of federal and provincial innovation policies.
 
Conclusion 
This study provides insights on practice, policy, and political issues that health organisations may face in the development, procurement, and/or utilisation of responsible DHTs. It can help scholars, practitioners, decision-makers, and industry to create the conditions for a better integration of RIH principles into health organisations and systems. 

Keywords

References

  1. Alami H, Lehoux P, Attieh R, et al. A “not so quiet” revolution: systemic benefits and challenges of telehealth in the context of COVID-19 in Quebec (Canada). Front Digit Health. 2021;3:721898. doi:3389/fdgth.2021.721898
  2. Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Shaw SE. Expanding video consultation services at pace and scale in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic: national mixed methods case study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(10):e31374. doi:2196/31374
  3. Greenhalgh T, Rosen R. Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we? Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(705):149-150. doi:3399/bjgp21X715313
  4. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Shaw S, Morrison C. Video consultations for COVID-19. BMJ. 2020;368:m998. doi:1136/bmj.m998
  5. Alami H, Lehoux P, Shaw SE, Papoutsi C, Rybczynska-Bunt S, Fortin JP. Virtual care and the inverse care law: implications for policy, practice, research, public and patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10591. doi:3390/ijerph191710591
  6. Bashshur R, Doarn CR, Frenk JM, Kvedar JC, Woolliscroft JO. Telemedicine and the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons for the future. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(5):571-573. doi:1089/tmj.2020.29040.rb
  7. Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1679-1681. doi:1056/NEJMp2003539
  8. Brunet F, Malas K, Desrosiers ME. Will telemedicine survive after COVID-19? Healthc Manage Forum. 2021;34(5):256-259. doi:1177/08404704211031264
  9. Pacifico Silva H, Lehoux P, Miller FA, Denis JL. Introducing responsible innovation in health: a policy-oriented framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):90. doi:1186/s12961-018-0362-5
  10. Nadkarni A, Hasler V, AhnAllen CG, et al. Telehealth during COVID-19-does everyone have equal access? Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(11):1093-1094. doi:1176/appi.ajp.2020.20060867
  11. Woolley KE, Bright D, Ayres T, Morgan F, Little K, Davies AR. Mapping inequities in digital health technology within the World Health Organization's European Region using PROGRESS PLUS: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e44181. doi:2196/44181
  12. Williams C, Shang D. Telehealth usage among low-income racial and ethnic minority populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e43604. doi:2196/43604
  13. Davies AR, Honeyman M, Gann B. Addressing the digital inverse care law in the time of COVID-19: potential for digital technology to exacerbate or mitigate health inequalities. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e21726. doi:2196/21726
  14. Salisbury H. Helen Salisbury: the inverse care law in the digital age. BMJ. 2019;364:l308. doi:1136/bmj.l308
  15. Calthorpe RJ, Smyth AR. Telehealth after the pandemic: will the inverse care law apply? (Commentary). J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20 Suppl 3:47-48. doi:1016/j.jcf.2021.08.023
  16. Husain L, Greenhalgh T, Hughes G, Finlay T, Wherton J. Desperately seeking intersectionality in digital health disparity research: narrative review to inform a richer theorization of multiple disadvantage. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(12):e42358. doi:2196/42358
  17. Uscher-Pines L, Mulcahy A, Cowling D, Hunter G, Burns R, Mehrotra A. Access and quality of care in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2016;22(4):282-287. doi:1089/tmj.2015.0079
  18. Mehrotra A, Uscher-Pines L, Lee MS. The dawn of direct-to-consumer telehealth. In: Understanding Telehealth. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018:217-223. https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=2217&sectionid=187795446. Accessed March 31, 2023.
  19. Bollmeier SG, Stevenson E, Finnegan P, Griggs SK. Direct to consumer telemedicine: is healthcare from home best? Mo Med. 2020;117(4):303-309.
  20. Solo-Josephson P, Zettler-Greeley CM, Murren-Boezem J. Direct-to-consumer telemedicine. In: Atanda A Jr, Lovejoy JF, eds. Telemedicine in Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine. Cham: Springer; 2021:117-129. doi:1007/978-3-030-53879-8_11
  21. Li KY, Zhu Z, Ng S, Ellimoottil C. Direct-to-consumer telemedicine visits for acute respiratory infections linked to more downstream visits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(4):596-602. doi:1377/hlthaff.2020.01741
  22. Alami H, Rivard L, de Oliveira RR, et al. Guiding pay-as-you-live health insurance models toward responsible innovation in health. J Particip Med. 2020;12(3):e19586. doi:2196/19586
  23. de Vries A. The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence. Joule. 2023;7(10):2191-2194. doi:1016/j.joule.2023.09.004
  24. Thompson M. The environmental impacts of digital health. Digit Health. 2021;7:20552076211033421. doi:1177/20552076211033421
  25. Kaack LH, Donti PL, Strubell E, Kamiya G, Creutzig F, Rolnick D. Aligning artificial intelligence with climate change mitigation. Nat Clim Chang. 2022;12(6):518-527. doi:1038/s41558-022-01377-7
  26. Gurova O, Merritt TR, Papachristos E, Vaajakari J. Sustainable solutions for wearable technologies: mapping the product development life cycle. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8444. doi:3390/su12208444
  27. Kickbusch I, Piselli D, Agrawal A, et al. The Lancet and Financial Times Commission on governing health futures 2030: growing up in a digital world. Lancet. 2021;398(10312):1727-1776. doi:1016/s0140-6736(21)01824-9
  28. Galaz V. Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The Anthropocene Gap. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
  29. Alami H, Rivard L, Lehoux P, Ag Ahmed MA, Fortin JP, Fleet R. Integrating environmental considerations in digital health technology assessment and procurement: stakeholders' perspectives. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231219113. doi:1177/20552076231219113
  30. Huesch MD, Mosher TJ. Using it or losing it? The case for data scientists inside health care. NEJM Catal. 2017;3(3). doi:1056/cat.17.0493
  31. Rivard L, Lehoux P, Rocha de Oliveira R, Alami H. Thematic analysis of tools for health innovators and organisation leaders to develop digital health solutions fit for climate change. BMJ Lead. 2024;8(1):32-38. doi:1136/leader-2022-000697
  32. Lehoux P, Rocha de Oliveira R, Rivard L, et al. A comprehensive, valid, and reliable tool to assess the degree of responsibility of digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence: 3-phase mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48496. doi:2196/48496
  33. Lehoux P, Rivard L, Rocha de Oliveira R, Mörch CM, Alami H. Tools to foster responsibility in digital solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence: a scoping review for health and innovation policymakers. Int J Med Inform. 2023;170:104933. doi:1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104933
  34. Alami H, Rivard L, Lehoux P, et al. Artificial intelligence in health care: laying the foundation for responsible, sustainable, and inclusive innovation in low- and middle-income countries. Global Health. 2020;16(1):52. doi:1186/s12992-020-00584-1
  35. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025. WHO; 2021. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2023.
  36. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568-1580. doi:1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
  37. Abrishami P, Repping S. Nurturing societal values in and through health innovations: Comment on "What health system challenges should responsible innovation in health address?". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(10):613-615. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.57
  38. Pavie X. To what extent should the perspective of responsible innovation irrigate the organization as a whole? In: International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019:225-242.
  39. Zurynski Y, Herkes-Deane J, Holt J, et al. How can the healthcare system deliver sustainable performance? A scoping review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e059207. doi:1136/bmjopen-2021-059207
  40. Dilhac MA, Abrassart C, Voarino N, et al. Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence. Université de Montréal; 2018. https://www.declarationmontreal-iaresponsable.com/_files/ugd/ebc3a3_28b2dfe7ee13479caaf820477de1b8bc.pdf?index=true. Accessed March 31, 2023.
  41. Bengio Y. L’IA pour le meilleur, sans le pire. The Conversation; 2018. https://theconversation.com/lia-pour-le-meilleur-sans-le-pire-107552. Accessed March 31, 2023.
  42. Lehoux P, Alami H, Mörch C, et al. Peut-on innover de façon responsable en temps de pandémie? L’intelligence artificielle et le numérique face au SARS-Cov-2. Montréal, QC: Observatoire international sur les impacts sociétaux de l’intelligence artificielle et du numérique (OBVIA); 2020. https://www.obvia.ca/sites/obvia.ca/files/ressources/202005-OBV-Pub-COVID_InnovationResponsable.pdf. Accessed July 9, 2024.
  43. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Denis JL, Gauthier P, Hagemeister N. Pourquoi et comment sont conçues les innovations responsables? Résultats d’une méta-ethnographie. Innovations. 2019;59(2):15-42. doi:3917/inno.059.0015
  44. Forsberg EM, Thorstensen E. A report from the field: doing RRI from scratch in an assisted living technology research and development project. In: Governance and Sustainability of Responsible Research and Innovation Processes. Cham: Springer; 2018:19-26. doi:1007/978-3-319-73105-6_3
  45. Rivard L, Lehoux P. When desirability and feasibility go hand in hand: innovators’ perspectives on what is and is not responsible innovation in health. J Responsible Innov. 2020;7(1):76-95. doi:1080/23299460.2019.1622952
  46. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:1093/intqhc/mzm042
  47. Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications. SAGE Publications; 2018.
  48. Alami H, Lehoux P, Papoutsi C, Shaw SE, Fleet R, Fortin JP. Understanding the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare organisations and systems through the NASSS framework: a qualitative study in a leading Canadian academic centre. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):701. doi:1186/s12913-024-11112-x
  49. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2014.
  50. Morse JM. Designing funded qualitative research. In: Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1994:220-235.
  51. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(3):377-394. doi:1177/1049732305285708
  52. Paillé P. De l’analyse qualitative en général et de l’analyse thématique en particulier. Recherches Qualitatives. 1996;15:179-194.
  53. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:1191/1478088706qp063oa
  54. Pomey MP, Flora L, Karazivan P, et al. Le «Montreal model»: enjeux du partenariat relationnel entre patients et professionnels de la santé. Sante Publique. 2015;1 Suppl:41-50. [French].
  55. Silva HP, Lefebvre AA, Oliveira RR, Lehoux P. Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: an evidence-informed assessment tool for innovation stakeholders. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(4):181-191. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.34
  56. Giuliani E. Regulating global capitalism amid rampant corporate wrongdoing—reply to “three frames for innovation policy”. Res Policy. 2018;47(9):1577-1582. doi:1016/j.respol.2018.08.013
  57. Cherki El Idrissi S, Corbett J, Mellouli S. Exploratory Study of Responsible Innovation: Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainability. Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS); 2020:1-10. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/326836301.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2023.
  58. Blind K, Petersen SS, Riillo CA. The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets. Res Policy. 2017;46(1):249-264. doi:1016/j.respol.2016.11.003
  59. Stahl BC, Borsella E, Porcari A, Mantovani E. Responsible innovation in ICT: challenges for industry. In: International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019:367-378. doi:4337/9781784718862.00034
  60. Dzhengiz T, Niesten E. Competences for environmental sustainability: a systematic review on the impact of absorptive capacity and capabilities. J Bus Ethics. 2020;162(4):881-906. doi:1007/s10551-019-04360-z
  61. Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(2):185-203. doi:5465/amr.2002.6587995
  62. Thorstensen E. Stakeholders’ views on responsible assessments of assistive technologies through an ethical HTA matrix. Societies. 2019;9(3):51. doi:3390/soc9030051
  63. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(1):123-152. doi:1007/s10198-017-0871-0
  64. Nicod E, Kanavos P. Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: a mixed methods study. Health Policy. 2016;120(1):35-45. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2015.11.007
  65. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Grimard D, Gauthier P. Anticipating health innovations in 2030-2040: where does responsibility lie for the publics? Public Underst Sci. 2018;27(3):276-293. doi:1177/0963662517725715
  66. Grunwald A. Technology assessment for responsible innovation. In: van den Hoven J, Doorn N, Swierstra T, Koops BJ, Romijn H, eds. Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014:15-31. doi:1007/978-94-017-8956-1_2
  67. Pellizzoni L. Responsibility and environmental governance. Env Polit. 2004;13(3):541-565. doi:1080/0964401042000229034
  68. Ménissier T. Un «moment machiavélien» pour l’intelligence artificielle? Raisons Politiques. 2020;77(1):67-81. doi:3917/rai.077.0067
  69. Blok V, Lemmens P. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In: Koops BJ, Oosterlaken I, Romijn H, Swierstra T, van den Hoven J, eds. Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications. Cham: Springer; 2015:19-35. doi:1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2
  70. van Oudheusden M. Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J Responsible Innov. 2014;1(1):67-86. doi:1080/23299460.2014.882097
  71. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Urbach DR. How venture capitalists decide which new medical technologies come to exist. Sci Public Policy. 2015;43(3):375-385. doi:1093/scipol/scv051
  72. Dambrin C, Lambert C, Sponem S. Control and change—analysing the process of institutionalisation. Manag Account Res. 2007;18(2):172-208. doi:1016/j.mar.2007.02.003
  73. Lehoux P, Pacifico Silva H, Pozelli Sabio R, Roncarolo F. The unexplored contribution of responsible innovation in health to sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 2018;10(11):4015. doi:3390/su10114015
  74. Hennen L, Nierling L. Responsible innovation and technology assessment in Europe: barriers and opportunities for establishing structures and principles of democratic science and technology policy. In: International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019:211-223. doi:4337/9781784718862.00021
  75. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. doi:1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  76. Greenhalgh T, Koh GCH, Car J. COVID-19: a remote assessment in primary care. BMJ. 2020;368:m1182. doi:1136/bmj.m1182
  77. Greenhalgh T, Stramer K, Bratan T, Byrne E, Russell J, Potts HW. Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study. BMJ. 2010;340:c3111. doi:1136/bmj.c3111
  78. Alami H, Fortin JP, Gagnon MP, Pollender H, Têtu B, Tanguay F. The challenges of a complex and innovative telehealth project: a qualitative evaluation of the Eastern Quebec telepathology network. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(5):421-432. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.106
  79. Alami H, Gagnon MP, Fortin JP. Telehealth in light of cloud computing: clinical, technological, regulatory and policy issues. Journal of the International Society for Telemedicine and eHealth. 2016;4:e5.
  80. Alami H, Gagnon MP, Fortin JP. Some multidimensional unintended consequences of telehealth utilization: a multi-project evaluation synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(6):337-352. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.12
  81. Alami H, Gagnon MP, Fortin JP. Digital health and the challenge of health systems transformation. Mhealth. 2017;3:31. doi:21037/mhealth.2017.07.02
  82. Alami H, Lehoux P, Denis JL, et al. Organizational readiness for artificial intelligence in health care: insights for decision-making and practice. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35(1):106-114. doi:1108/jhom-03-2020-0074
  83. Alami H, Shaw SE, Fortin JP, Savoldelli M, Fleet R, Têtu B. The 'wrong pocket' problem as a barrier to the integration of telehealth in health organisations and systems. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231169835. doi:1177/20552076231169835
  84. Alami H, Lehoux P, Auclair Y, et al. Artificial intelligence and health technology assessment: anticipating a new level of complexity. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e17707. doi:2196/17707
  85. Gouvernement du Québec. Stratégie québécoise de recherche et d'investissement en innovation 2022-2027. Québec; 2022. https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/economie/publications-adm/politique/PO_SQRI2_2022-2027_MEI.pdf.
  86. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(5):435-446. doi:1007/s40273-015-0370-z
  87. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1-13. doi:1016/j.jval.2015.12.003

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 April 2023
  • Revise Date: 10 July 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 October 2024
  • First Publish Date: 07 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics