Assessing Impact: An evaluation of CIHR’s eHealth Innovations Partnership Program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:Research funders make substantial investments in health services research to support the implementation, evaluation, and adoption of equitable, evidence-based solutions in the health system. However, there is limited understanding of the impacts of these investments and their influence on policy and practice. Assessing research impact is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of research, the extent to which research informs decision-making, how research contributes to improving population health and health system performance, and the overall value of research investments. After a decade of investing in digital health research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) undertook a research impact assessment on its largest digital health program, the eHealth Innovations Partnership Program (eHIPP), to understand the program impacts and outputs.The eHIPP program had a strong focus on leveraging ehealth innovations as tools to improve care coordination. The aims of eHIPP were to: ) identify patient-oriented ehealth solutions that improve health outcomes and patient experience, and lower the cost of care; and 2) foster partnerships between providers, patients, families, researchers, decision makers and health technology partners to co-design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of the ehealth solutions. Approach: A mixed methods approach was taken to collect and analyze data from eHIPP grant recipients and their partners. This involved a review of CIHR documents related to the program and online surveys to the lead researchers and their partners (n=22 responses). Semi-structured interviews with grantees and their project partners (n=2) were used to further explore survey findings, followed by thematic analysis, triangulation, and synthesis of data from the various sources. Two complementary impact frameworks, the Canadian Academy of Heath Science Making an Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance Informing Decision-Making an Impact Framework, served as the foundation for the impact assessment. Results:The eHIPP program supported 22 teams through a total investment of $42M, including $3.9M from CIHR and $28.7M (cash and in-kind support) from 9 applicant partners. There were 36 collaborating organizations that provided support to the 22 teams, which were located in 9 research institutions across 6 provinces.eHIPP had positive impacts on the individual research programs, research teams and careers of lead investigators. A total of 92.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that eHIPP funding was essential for their research and their advancements in digital health. Researchers also developed their academic profiles through the mentorship and supervision of over 27 trainees, 65 publications and 94 presentations.The research teams reported over 35 co-designed solutions focused on improving the coordination of care across the health system, with most solutions in the areas of virtual care (n= 0), home health monitoring (n= 8), and wearables/sensors (n= 4). Respondents highly valued their partnerships with healthcare providers (95%), patients (86%), and policy-makers (52%). Additionally, respondents indicated that both health providers and patients were engaged in co-design, provided input and feedback, and supported the implementation process.Respondents reported their solutions had impacts on health and the health system, including improved equitable access to care (59%), better patient experience (59%), enhanced health outcomes (59%), improved population health (45%), and enhanced health equity (4%). Respondents also indicated their solutions contributed to influencing health system practices (50%) and informing health policy (32%). Implications:This assessment explored the impacts of CIHR eHIPP program. Findings indicate that collaboration among stakeholders, strong partnerships, and co-design approaches are highly valued and instrumental for implementing patient-centred digital health solutions that address population needs, enhance equity, and shape policy and practice. This research impact assessment highlights the critical role of digital innovations in advancing integrated care across Canada and contributes to advancing the science of funding for impact.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,271 | 0,293 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».