BMJ Innovations

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 2055-8074 / 2055-642X
Published by: BMJ (10.1136)
Total articles ≅ 310
Current Coverage
SCOPUS
LOCKSS
Archived in
SHERPA/ROMEO
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

Chandni N Hindocha, Grazia Antonacci, James Barlow,
Published: 5 October 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 647-656; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000830

Abstract:
Frugal innovation (FI), which has gained traction in various sectors, is loosely defined as developing quality solutions in a resource-constrained environment that are affordable to low-income consumers. However, with its popularity, multiple and diverse definitions have emerged that often lack a theoretical foundation. This has led to a convoluted conceptualisation that hinders research and adoption in practice. Despite this plethora of perspectives and definitions, scholars do agree that there is a need for a unified definition. This critical review across the management, entrepreneurship, business and organisation studies literatures explores the multiple definitions of FI that have appeared in the last two decades and seeks to examine the commonalities and differences. One definition is supported by a theoretical underpinning, and main themes include affordability, adaptability, resource scarcity, accessibility and sustainability, however, there remains significant ambiguity around what constitutes an FI. Defining FI as a concept should not deter from focusing on its core aim and identifying an FI may be best achieved by comparing it to an incumbent alternative, rather than against an ill-defined concept. There is merit in developing a common understanding of FI to support strategies for its successful acceptance and diffusion globally.
Tamsin Mary Holland Brown, Isobel Fitzgerald O’Connor, Jessica Bewick, Colin Morley
Published: 4 October 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 600-603; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000676

Elizabeth Burden, Keesha Khehra, Rohit Singla, Lucie Spooner, Angela Cho, Christopher Nguan
Published: 24 September 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 619-625; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000762

Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah, Viraj Shah, , Robert Vardanyan, George Miller, Johann Malawana
Published: 24 September 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 657-668; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000837

Abstract:
Objective This systematic review aims to provide a summary of the use of real-time telementoring, telesurgical consultation and telesurgery in surgical procedures in patients in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Design A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Collaboration published guidelines. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for original articles and case reports that discussed telementoring, telesurgery or telesurgical consultation in countries defined as low-income or middle-income (as per the World Banks’s 2021–2022 classifications) from inception to August 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies All original articles and case reports were included if they reported the use of telemedicine, telesurgery or telesurgical consultation in procedures conducted on patients in LMICs. Results There were 12 studies which discussed the use of telementoring in 55 patients in LMICs and included a variety of surgical specialities. There was one study that discussed the use of telesurgical consultation in 15 patients in LMICs and one study that discussed the use of telesurgery in one patient. Conclusion The presence of intraoperative telemedicine in LMICs represents a principal move towards improving access to specialist surgical care for patients in resource-poor settings. Not only do several studies demonstrate that it facilitates training and educational opportunities, but it remains a relatively frugal and efficient method of doing so, through empowering local surgeons in LMICs towards offering optimal care while remaining in their respective communities.
Raphael Rifkin-Zybutz, Hamzah Selim, Monika Johal, Narayan Kuleindiren, Itai Palmon, Aaron Lin, Yizhou Yu, Mohammad Mahmud
Published: 17 September 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 626-631; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000780

Dhananjaya Sharma, , Vikesh Agrawal, Pawan Agarwal
Published: 13 September 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 642-646; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000710

Abstract:
Innovation, although central to the development of medical science, is a complex process and its definition continues to be debated.10 Its complexities are further reflected in challenges in its evaluation and reporting even though frameworks such as Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring, a widely accepted benchmark, are available.11 In a recent systematic review, the measurement and reporting of surgical innovations continues to be inconsistent, and there is a need for standardisation and guidance.12 FIs reporting is made even more complex for two reasons (1) that they are work-arounds and unconventional solutions for reducing the complexity and cost of an idea, oftentimes unpatented, not commercialised, without financial backing or simple changes in practice or technique, and …
Lukoye Atwoli, Abdullah H Baqui, Thomas Benfield, Raffaella Bosurgi, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Hancocks, Richard Horton, Laurie Laybourn-Langton, Carlos Augusto Monteiro, Ian Norman, et al.
Published: 5 September 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 597-599; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000834

Keith Hanson, Nadia Shaikh, Abigail Wooldridge, Harleena Kendhari, Sara M Krzyzaniak, Teresa Riech, Elsa Vazquez-Melendez, Matthew Mischler, Rebecca Ebert-Allen, Ginger Barton, et al.
Published: 3 August 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 632-636; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000628

Helen Yu
Published: 30 July 2021
by BMJ
BMJ Innovations, Volume 7, pp 637-641; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000713

Abstract:
There is significant literature on the potential benefits of DHTs in reducing costs and the burden on the healthcare system, for example, by offering the public ways to self-manage health from home.2 DHTs are also attributed with the ability to help detect early warning signs of potentially serious health conditions that may otherwise go unnoticed.3 While healthcare providers generally recognise DHTs as useful tools, there is evidence that these technologies are increasingly being used by the public in a manner that potentially increases healthcare costs in the long run.4 5 One study reported an increase in physician–‘digital chondriac’ interaction where patients demand immediate attention from medical professionals based on troubling health indicators detected by wearable devices, which may or may not be accurate.6 On the other end of the spectrum, some patients elect to bypass traditional health service structures and take medical and health decision into their own hands at great risk to themselves instead of consulting a medical professional.7 8 The medical literature also echoes concerns regarding the accuracy and unsubstantiated scientific claims of DHTs which may mislead consumers about their health and lead to potentially harmful …
Back to Top Top