Browse through all publications from the Institute of Global Health Innovation, which our Patient Safety Research Collaboration is part of. This feed includes reports and research papers from our Centre.
Results
- Showing results for:
- Reset all filters
Search results
-
Journal articleAufegger L, Yanar C, Bicknell C, et al., 2021,
The risk-value trade-off: price and brand information impact consumers’ intentions to purchase OTC drugs
, Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, Vol: 14, ISSN: 2052-3211BackgroundEuropean countries face fiscal pressure regarding the long-term sustainability of their healthcare system due to increasing levels of public health expenditures and mounting demographic pressures. The promotion of generic drugs is considered to be an efficient means to tackle these challenges; however, market diffusion remains slow. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of price and brand cues on purchase intentions by means of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising, and to build on the market cue evaluation model by Dodd et al.MethodsParticipants rated purchase intentions on six DTC adverts varying in price and brand information, followed by self-reports on purchase intentions, attitudes towards generics, brand loyalty, price consciousness, as well as perceptions of quality, risk and value. Open-ended questions explored attitudes toward generic drugs.ResultsBrand information and purchase intentions were mediated by perceived risk and perceived quality, while price information influenced purchase intention through perceptions of quality, risk and value. Consumers’ purchase behaviour was furthermore influenced by unawareness and misconceptions, past experiences, and advertising as a decision-making tool.ConclusionsAdvertisements, including price and brand information, are an important tool to improve consumers’ awareness of the availability of different OTC drugs. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
-
Journal articleViner RM, Bonell C, Drake L, et al., 2021,
Reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: governments must balance the uncertainty and risks of reopening schools against the clear harms associated with prolonged closure
, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol: 106, Pages: 111-113, ISSN: 0003-9888 -
Journal articleIqbal F, Lam K, Joshi M, et al., 2021,
Clinical outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems in remote monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis
, npj Digital Medicine, Vol: 4, Pages: 1-12, ISSN: 2398-6352Advances in digital technologies have allowed remote monitoring and digital alerting systems to gain popularity. Despite this, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims that digital alerting can improve clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to appraise the evidence on the clinical outcomes of digital alerting systems in remote monitoring through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search, with no language restrictions, was performed to identify studies evaluating healthcare outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems used in remote monitoring across all (medical and surgical) cohorts. The primary outcome was hospitalisation; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, emergency department and outpatient visits. Standard, pooled hazard ratio and proportion of means meta-analyses were performed. A total of 33 studies met the eligibility criteria; of which, 23 allowed for a meta-analysis. A 9.6% mean decrease in hospitalisation favouring digital alerting systems from a pooled random effects analysis was noted. However, pooled weighted mean differences and hazard ratios did not reproduce this finding. Digital alerting reduced hospital LOS by a mean difference of 1.043 days. A 3% mean decrease in all-cause mortality from digital alerting systems was noted. There was no benefit of digital alerting with respect to emergency department or outpatient visits. Digital alerts can considerably reduce hospitalisation and length of stay for certain cohorts in remote monitoring. Further research is required to confirm these findings and trial different alerting protocols to understand optimal alerting to guide future widespread implementation.
-
Journal articleNurek M, Rayner C, Freyer A, et al., 2021,
Recommendations for the Recognition, Diagnosis, and Management of Patients with Post COVID-19 Condition ('Long COVID'): A Delphi Study
, SSRN Electronic Journal -
Journal articleO'Brien N, Grass E, Martin G, et al., 2021,
Developing a globally applicable cybersecurity framework for healthcare: a Delphi consensus study
, BMJ INNOVATIONS, Vol: 7, Pages: 199-207, ISSN: 2055-8074- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 1
-
Journal articleSmalley K, Aufegger L, Flott K, et al., 2021,
Can self-management programmes change healthcare utilisation in COPD?: A systematic review and framework analysis
, Patient Education and Counseling, Vol: 104, Pages: 50-63, ISSN: 0738-3991ObjectiveThe study aims to evaluate the ability of self-management programmes to change the healthcare-seeking behaviours of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and any associations between programme design and outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of the literature returned randomised controlled trials of SMPs for COPD. Change in healthcare utilisation was the primary outcome measure. Programme design was analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).ResultsA total of 26 papers described 19 SMPs. The most common utilisation outcome was hospitalisation (n = 22). Of these, 5 showed a significant decrease. Two theoretical domains were evidenced in all programmes: skills and behavioural regulation. All programmes evidenced at least 5 domains. However, there was no clear association between TDF domains and utilisation. Overall, study quality was moderate to poor.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for more alignment in the goals, design, and evaluation of SMPs. Specifically, the TDF could be used to guide programme design and evaluation in future.Practice implicationsPractices have a reasonable expectation that interventions they adopt will provide patient benefit and value for money. Better design and reporting of SMP trials would address their ability to do so.
-
Journal articleJones MD, McGrogan A, Raynor DK, et al., 2021,
User-testing guidelines to improve the safety of intravenous medicines administration: a randomised in situ simulation study
, BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, Vol: 30, Pages: 17-26, ISSN: 2044-5415- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 5
-
Journal articleChapman M, Dominguez J, Fairweather E, et al., 2021,
Using Computable Phenotypes in Point-of-Care Clinical Trial Recruitment
, PUBLIC HEALTH AND INFORMATICS, PROCEEDINGS OF MIE 2021, Vol: 281, Pages: 560-564, ISSN: 0926-9630 -
Conference paperHu M, Kassanos P, Keshavarz M, et al., 2021,
Electrical and Mechanical Characterization of Carbon-Based Elastomeric Composites for Printed Sensors and Electronics
, International Conference on Flexible and Printable Sensors and Systems (FLEPS), Publisher: IEEE- Cite
- Citations: 2
-
Journal articleSounderajah V, Patel V, Varatharajan L, et al., 2020,
Are disruptive innovations recognised in the healthcare literature? A systematic review
, BMJ Innovations, Vol: 7, Pages: 208-216, ISSN: 2055-8074The study aims to conduct a systematic review to characterise the spread and use of the concept of ‘disruptive innovation’ within the healthcare sector. We aim to categorise references to the concept over time, across geographical regions and across prespecified healthcare domains. From this, we further aim to critique and challenge the sector-specific use of the concept. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care, and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from inception to August 2019 for references pertaining to disruptive innovations within the healthcare industry. The heterogeneity of the articles precluded a meta-analysis, and neither quality scoring of articles nor risk of bias analyses were required. 245 articles that detailed perceived disruptive innovations within the health sector were identified. The disruptive innovations were categorised into seven domains: basic science (19.2%), device (12.2%), diagnostics (4.9%), digital health (21.6%), education (5.3%), processes (17.6%) and technique (19.2%). The term has been used with increasing frequency annually and is predominantly cited in North American (78.4%) and European (15.2%) articles. The five most cited disruptive innovations in healthcare are ‘omics’ technologies, mobile health applications, telemedicine, health informatics and retail clinics. The concept ‘disruptive innovation’ has diffused into the healthcare industry. However, its use remains inconsistent and the recognition of disruption is obscured by other types of innovation. The current definition does not accommodate for prospective scouting of disruptive innovations, a likely hindrance to policy makers. Redefining disruptive innovation within the healthcare sector is therefore crucial for prospectively identifying cost-effective innovations.
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.
