nach oben

Journal of Medical Systems

Erschienen in:

01.12.2024 | Review

Application of the Stanford Biodesign Framework in Healthcare Innovation Training and Commercialization of Market Appropriate Products: A Scoping Review

verfasst von: Joelle Yan Xin Chua, Enci Mary Kan, Phin Peng Lee, Shefaly Shorey

Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The Stanford Biodesign needs-centric framework can guide healthcare innovators to successfully adopt the ‘Identify, Invent and Implement’ framework and develop new healthcare innovations products to address patients’ needs. This scoping review explored the application of the Stanford Biodesign framework for healthcare innovation training and the development of novel healthcare innovative products. Seven electronic databases were searched from their respective inception dates till April 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews and was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework. Findings were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework. Three themes and eight subthemes were identified from the 26 included articles. The main themes are: (1) Making a mark on healthcare innovation, (2) Secrets behind success, and (3) The next steps. The Stanford Biodesign framework guided healthcare innovation teams to develop new medical products and achieve better patient health outcomes through the induction of training programs and the development of novel products. Training programs adopting the Stanford Biodesign approach were found to be successful in improving trainees’ entrepreneurship, innovation, and leadership skills and should continue to be promoted. To aid innovators in commercializing their newly developed medical products, additional support such as securing funds for early start-up companies, involving clinicians and users in product testing and validation, and establishing new guidelines and protocols for the new healthcare products would be needed.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Schwarz T, Schmidt AE, Bobek J, Ladurner J. Barriers to accessing health care for people with chronic conditions: a qualitative interview study. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1):1037. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08426-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Augustin DA, Denend L, Wall J, Krummel T, Azagury DE. The Biodesign Model: Training Physician Innovators and Entrepreneurs. In: Cohen MS, Kao L, eds. Success in Academic Surgery: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019:71–88.CrossRef

Day-Duro E, Lubitsh G, Smith G. Understanding and investing in healthcare innovation and collaboration. J Health Organ Manag 2020;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-07-2019-0206

Augustin DA, Chertow GM, Azagury DE. Innovation in hemodialysis: Using the Biodesign process to identify unmet needs. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(4):509–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729820913692CrossRefPubMed

Brinton TJ, Kurihara CQ, Camarillo DB, et al. Outcomes from a postgraduate biomedical technology innovation training program: the first 12 years of Stanford Biodesign. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(9):1803–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0761-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nimgaonkar A, Yock PG, Brinton TJ, Krummel T, Pasricha PJ. Gastroenterology and biodesign: contributing to the future of our specialty. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(2):258–262. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.12.009CrossRefPubMed

Ray PP, Amaral JF, Hinoul P. Innovation Best Practices in the Medical Device Industry. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;20(2):90–93. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2017.04.004CrossRefPubMed

Rivers CA, Roher H, Boissonault BA, Klinger CA, Mirza RM, Foty R. Examining Fall Risk Assessment in Geriatric Rehabilitation Settings Using Translational Research. Rehabil Nurs. 2021;46(3):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/rnj.0000000000000259CrossRefPubMed

Schwartz JG, Kumar UN, Azagury DE, Brinton TJ, Yock PG. Needs-Based Innovation in Cardiovascular Medicine: The Stanford Biodesign Process. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1(6):541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Wall J, Wynne E, Krummel T. Biodesign process and culture to enable pediatric medical technology innovation. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015;24(3):102–106. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.005CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wynne EK, Krummel TM. Innovation within a university setting. Surgery. 2016;160(6):1427–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.06.059CrossRefPubMed

12.

Barbazzeni B, Fritzsche H, Friebe M. Forecasting the Future of Healthcare Democratization Forecasting the Future of Healthcare Democratization. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering. 2021;7(2):155–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2021-2040CrossRef

13.

Gough P, Yoo S, Tomitsch M, Ahmadpour N. Applying Bioaffordances through an Inquiry-Based Model: A Literature Review of Interactive Biodesign. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2021;37(17):1583–1597. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1898846CrossRef

14.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616CrossRef

15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850CrossRefPubMed

16.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10). https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2020/10000/Updated_methodological_guidance_for_the_conduct_of.4.aspx

17.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Vol 11: sage; 1988.

18.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRef

19.

Bruzzi MS, Linehan JH. BioInnovate Ireland–fostering entrepreneurial activity through medical device innovation training. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(9):1834–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0787-5CrossRefPubMed

20.

Chaturvedi J, Logan A, Narayan G, Kuttappa S. A structured process for unmet clinical need analysis for medical device innovation in India: Early experiences. BMJ Innovations. 2015;1(3):81–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2014-000010CrossRef

21.

Dharmawan R, Ho H, Ng HHM, Iyer NG, Tan HK, Tan NC. Implementing the Biodesign Process for Medical Device Innovation in Head and Neck Surgery. Surg Innov. 2020;27(6):653–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620943796CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fritzsche H, Barbazzeni B, Mahmeen M, Haider S, Friebe M. A Structured Pathway Toward Disruption: A Novel HealthTec Innovation Design Curriculum With Entrepreneurship in Mind. Front Public Health. 2021;9:715768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.715768CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Fritzsche H, Mahbub E, Boese A, Friebe M. State-of-The-Art: Biodesign based Innovation Ecosystems in Europe. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering. 2021;7(2):231–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2021-2059CrossRef

24.

Fuerch JH, Wang P, Van Wert R, Denend L. Turning Practicing Surgeons Into Health Technology Innovators: Outcomes From the Stanford Biodesign Faculty Fellowship. Surg Innov. 2021;28(1):134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620984338CrossRefPubMed

25.

Greene A, Zhang Y, Asan O, et al. Successful application of the innovation process to a case of Floyd Type I tracheal agenesis. Surg Open Sci. 2023;11:73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2022.11.005CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kiriyama H, Kakihiana T, Maeda Y, et al. Cultivating design thinking skills through the biodesign process in Japan. BMJ Innovations. 2022;8(4):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000923CrossRef

27.

Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J, et al. Inventing our future: Training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery. 2006;15(4):309–318. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2006.07.011CrossRefPubMed

28.

Maloney LM, Hakimi M, Hays T, et al. Learning the Language of Medical Device Innovation: A Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Elective for Medical Students. Acad Med. 2022;97(9):1341–1345. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004723CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

McGloughlin EK, Anglim P, Keogh I, Sharif F. Innovation for the future of Irish MedTech industry: retrospective qualitative review of impact of BioInnovate Ireland’s clinical fellows. BMJ Innov. 2018;4(1):32–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000184CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nakao K, Umezu M, Iwasaki K. Biodesign program introduction in Japan: promotion of entrepreneurship and viewpoints of education on medical technology innovation. J Artif Organs. 2022;25(4):350–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-022-01317-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Perrone KH, Blevins KS, Denend L, Fan R, Huelman J, Wall JK. Initial experiences with virtual reality as a tool for observation in needs-driven health technology innovation. BMJ Innovations. 2020;6(1):10–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2018-000308CrossRef

32.

Preiksaitis C, Dayton JR, Kabeer R, Bunney G, Boukhman M. Teaching Principles of Medical Innovation and Entrepreneurship Through Hackathons: Case Study and Qualitative Analysis. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e43916. https://doi.org/10.2196/43916CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Robinson TN. A Biodesign Approach to Designing, Packaging, and Scaling a Pediatric Weight Management Program: The Stanford CORD 3.0 Project. Child Obes. 2021;17(S1):S79–s85. https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2021.0182CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sista AK, Hwang GL, Hovsepian DM, et al. Applying a structured innovation process to interventional radiology: a single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(4):488–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.12.029CrossRefPubMed

35.

Wall J, Hellman E, Denend L, et al. The Impact of Postgraduate Health Technology Innovation Training: Outcomes of the Stanford Biodesign Fellowship. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(5):1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1777-1CrossRefPubMed

36.

Wang JK, Pamnani RD, Capasso R, Chang RT. An Extended Hackathon Model for Collaborative Education in Medical Innovation. J Med Syst. 2018;42(12):239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1098-zCrossRefPubMed

37.

Bradbury-Jones C, Aveyard H, Herber OR, Isham L, Taylor J, O’Malley L. Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2021:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1899596

38.

Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: Transforming theory into practice. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(2):161–164. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.643264CrossRefPubMed

39.

Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002CrossRefPubMed

40.

Beauchamp MR, McEwan D, Waldhauser KJ. Team building: conceptual, methodological, and applied considerations. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017;16:114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.031CrossRefPubMed

41.

May ME. How intelligent constraints drive creativity. Harvard Business Review January. 2013;30.

42.

Njah J, Hansoti B, Adeyami A, et al. Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact. Ann Glob Health. 2021;87(1):63. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3221CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Gomez LE, Bernet P. Diversity improves performance and outcomes. J Natl Med Assoc. 2019;111(4):383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006CrossRefPubMed

44.

Drennan VM, Ross F. Global nurse shortages-the facts, the impact and action for change. Br Med Bull. 2019;130(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldz014CrossRefPubMed

45.

Zhang X, Lin D, Pforsich H, Lin VW. Physician workforce in the United States of America: forecasting nationwide shortages. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-0448-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Gupta DM, Boland RJ, Aron DC. The physician’s experience of changing clinical practice: a struggle to unlearn. Implementation Science. 2017;12(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0555-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Perregrini M. Mitigating Resistance to Change in the Workplace. Creat Nurs. 2019;25(2):154–156. https://doi.org/10.1891/1078-4535.25.2.154CrossRefPubMed

48.

Nicklin W, Hughes L. Patient Safety: We’ve Come a Long Way. Healthc Q. 2020;22(Sp):6–9. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2020.26051CrossRefPubMed

49.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5(4):371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Application of the Stanford Biodesign Framework in Healthcare Innovation Training and Commercialization of Market Appropriate Products: A Scoping Review
verfasst von: Joelle Yan Xin Chua
Enci Mary Kan
Phin Peng Lee
Shefaly Shorey
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Medical Systems / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02067-x

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Developing an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Nudge Intervention to Improve Medication Adherence: A Human-Centred Design Approach

Assessing the Efficacy of a Novel Massive Open Online Soft Skills Course for South Asian Healthcare Professionals

Development of an Automated and Scalable Virtual Assistant to Aid in PPE Adherence: A Study with Implications for Applications within Anesthesiology

Automated Prediction of Photographic Wound Assessment Tool in Chronic Wound Images

Multiple Classification of Brain MRI Autism Spectrum Disorder by Age and Gender Using Deep Learning

Text-Mining and Video Analytics of COVID-19 Narratives Shared by Patients on YouTube