What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay is based on the recognition that the current 'downstream' health services research and policy approach to innovation misses the mark on one crucial point. It has not addressed how to promote the design of innovations that are likely to be more valuable than others. Re-visiting the ways in which health services research could inform innovation processes, this paper suggests that three attributes make innovations especially compelling from a health care system perspective: relevance; usability; and sustainability. These could be used as a starting point for outlining a policy-oriented research agenda that could bridge upstream design processes, and downstream needs and priorities. Given the pace at which innovations come about and the complexity of health care systems, we believe that both research and policy should be able to contribute significantly to the shaping of socially valuable technological change in health care. Recognizing that such a long-term goal cannot be reached through a linear, rationalistic process, our paper offers preliminary arguments to start to reconcile the health policy and innovation agendas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".