A Multidisciplinary Model for the Governance of Clinical Innovation: Insights From a Qualitative Study of Australian Doctors.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1177/01632787251324662
Miriam Wiersma, Ian Kerridge, Wendy Lipworth
{"title":"A Multidisciplinary Model for the Governance of Clinical Innovation: Insights From a Qualitative Study of Australian Doctors.","authors":"Miriam Wiersma, Ian Kerridge, Wendy Lipworth","doi":"10.1177/01632787251324662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical innovation by doctors involves the development and use of interventions that have not been formally evaluated according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine. While the distinction between research and innovation has been discussed theoretically, little is known about how doctors working in different specialty areas define and understand clinical innovation and how they distinguish it from other related practices. In order to address this gap, this qualitative interview study explored how doctors from diverse specialties defined and understood clinical innovation. Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian doctors from surgery, reproductive medicine, and cancer care. While participants defined clinical innovation in similar ways, they also identified several morally and clinically salient characteristics that distinguish different types of innovation. Based on these findings, we developed a multidisciplinary governance model for clinical innovation that accounts for its diversity and complexity. This governance model offers clear guidance for determining what types of oversight are most appropriate for different types of clinical innovation. Its benefits include that it can be applied across diverse medical specialties and used alongside existing models, such as those used to identify clinical innovation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787251324662"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787251324662","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical innovation by doctors involves the development and use of interventions that have not been formally evaluated according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine. While the distinction between research and innovation has been discussed theoretically, little is known about how doctors working in different specialty areas define and understand clinical innovation and how they distinguish it from other related practices. In order to address this gap, this qualitative interview study explored how doctors from diverse specialties defined and understood clinical innovation. Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian doctors from surgery, reproductive medicine, and cancer care. While participants defined clinical innovation in similar ways, they also identified several morally and clinically salient characteristics that distinguish different types of innovation. Based on these findings, we developed a multidisciplinary governance model for clinical innovation that accounts for its diversity and complexity. This governance model offers clear guidance for determining what types of oversight are most appropriate for different types of clinical innovation. Its benefits include that it can be applied across diverse medical specialties and used alongside existing models, such as those used to identify clinical innovation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床创新治理的多学科模型:来自澳大利亚医生定性研究的见解。
医生的临床创新涉及开发和使用尚未根据循证医学的通常标准进行正式评估的干预措施。虽然研究和创新之间的区别已经在理论上进行了讨论,但对于在不同专业领域工作的医生如何定义和理解临床创新以及他们如何将其与其他相关实践区分开来,人们知之甚少。为了解决这一差距,本定性访谈研究探讨了来自不同专业的医生如何定义和理解临床创新。对来自外科、生殖医学和癌症护理的澳大利亚医生进行了31次半结构化访谈。虽然参与者以相似的方式定义临床创新,但他们也确定了一些区分不同类型创新的道德和临床显著特征。基于这些发现,我们为临床创新开发了一个多学科治理模型,该模型考虑了临床创新的多样性和复杂性。这种治理模式为确定哪种类型的监督最适合不同类型的临床创新提供了明确的指导。它的好处包括它可以应用于不同的医学专业,并与现有模型一起使用,例如用于识别临床创新的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Cross-National Validation of a Health-Related Quality of Life Measure in Five Latin American Countries: Invariance of the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-8) and Proposed 6-Item Version (SF-6). Oncology Surgeons' Work Motivation, Organizational Cynicism, and Risk Factors: Associations With Patient Mortality Incidence Rates. Combining Business Education With Clinical Acumen … is it Necessary? A Systematic Review: What Are the Impacts of Receiving Extrinsic Feedback on Health Professions Students in Higher Education? Factors Influencing the Translation of Evidence Into Clinical Practice for Hospital Allied Health Professionals in Terms of the Domains of Behaviour Change Theory: A Systematic Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1