Enabling health technology innovation in Canada: Barriers and facilitators in policy and regulatory processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Health care innovation and technologies can improve patient outcomes, but policies and regulations established to protect the public interest may become barriers to improvement of health care delivery. We conducted a scoping review to identify policy and regulatory barriers to, and facilitators of, successful innovation and adoption of health technologies (excluding pharmaceutical and information technologies) in Canada. METHODS: The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodology to assess the breadth and depth of literature on this topic and drew upon published and grey literature from 2000-2016. Four reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion. RESULTS: Sixty- seven full- text documents were extracted to collect facilitators and barriers to health technology innovation and adoption. The extraction table was themed using content analysis, and reanalyzed, resulting in facilitators and barriers under six broad themes: development, assessment, implementation, Canadian policy context, partnerships and resources. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified current barriers and highlights numerous facilitators to create a responsive regulatory and policy environment that encourages and supports effective co-creation of innovations to optimize patient and economic outcomes while emphasizing the importance of sustainability of health technologies.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it