William S Bolton, Noel K Aruparayil, Bonnie Cundill, Peter McCulloch, Jesudian Gnanaraj, Ibrahim Bundu, Peter R Culmer, Julia M Brown, Julian Scott, David G Jayne
{"title":"No frugal innovation without frugal evaluation: the Global IDEAL Sub-Framework.","authors":"William S Bolton, Noel K Aruparayil, Bonnie Cundill, Peter McCulloch, Jesudian Gnanaraj, Ibrahim Bundu, Peter R Culmer, Julia M Brown, Julian Scott, David G Jayne","doi":"10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework Study aimed to combine the intended effects of the 2009/2019 IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) Framework recommendations on evaluating surgical innovation with the vision outlined by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery to provide recommendations for evaluating surgical innovation in low-resource environments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixture of methods including an online global survey and semistructured interviews (SSIs). Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Surgeons and surgical researchers from any country.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Findings were used to suggest the nature of adaptations to the IDEAL Framework to address the particular problems of evaluation in low-resource settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The online survey yielded 66 responses representing experience from 40 countries, and nine individual SSIs were conducted. Most respondents (n=49; 74.2%) had experience evaluating surgical technologies across a range of life cycle stages. Innovation was most frequently adopted based on colleague recommendation or clinical evaluation in other countries. Four themes emerged, centered around: frugal innovation in technological development; evaluating the same technology/innovation in different contexts; additional methodologies important in evaluation of surgical innovation in low/middle-income countries; and support for low-income country researchers along the evaluation pathway.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework provides suggestions for modified IDEAL recommendations aimed at dealing with the special problems found in this setting. These will require validation in a stakeholder consensus forum, and qualitative assessment in pilot studies. From assisting researchers with identification of the correct evaluation stage, to providing context-specific recommendations relevant to the whole evaluation pathway, this process will aim to develop a comprehensive and applicable set of guidance that will benefit surgical innovation and patients globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":33349,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11177672/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsit-2023-000248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework Study aimed to combine the intended effects of the 2009/2019 IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) Framework recommendations on evaluating surgical innovation with the vision outlined by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery to provide recommendations for evaluating surgical innovation in low-resource environments.
Design: A mixture of methods including an online global survey and semistructured interviews (SSIs). Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method.
Participants: Surgeons and surgical researchers from any country.
Main outcome measures: Findings were used to suggest the nature of adaptations to the IDEAL Framework to address the particular problems of evaluation in low-resource settings.
Results: The online survey yielded 66 responses representing experience from 40 countries, and nine individual SSIs were conducted. Most respondents (n=49; 74.2%) had experience evaluating surgical technologies across a range of life cycle stages. Innovation was most frequently adopted based on colleague recommendation or clinical evaluation in other countries. Four themes emerged, centered around: frugal innovation in technological development; evaluating the same technology/innovation in different contexts; additional methodologies important in evaluation of surgical innovation in low/middle-income countries; and support for low-income country researchers along the evaluation pathway.
Conclusions: The Global IDEAL Sub-Framework provides suggestions for modified IDEAL recommendations aimed at dealing with the special problems found in this setting. These will require validation in a stakeholder consensus forum, and qualitative assessment in pilot studies. From assisting researchers with identification of the correct evaluation stage, to providing context-specific recommendations relevant to the whole evaluation pathway, this process will aim to develop a comprehensive and applicable set of guidance that will benefit surgical innovation and patients globally.