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

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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":2.2000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信