MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378745433 · doi:10.1007/s41669-023-00422-1

Perceptions and Attitudes Regarding Medical Device Development in Canada Among Canadian Innovators: A Qualitative Study

2023· article· en· W4378745433 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ikennah Browne, Andrew Sutton, Wei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoEconomics - Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesSt. Paul's HospitalInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionFocus groupQualitative researchProcess (computing)Health technologyMarketingPsychologyPublic relationsHealth careBusinessMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Canadian medical device industry presents unique challenges to innovators. However, little attention has been paid to exploring the distinct experience of Canadian medical device innovators in the literature. The objective of this study is to explore the experience of Canadian innovators in navigating this industry, with a focus on their perceptions and attitudes towards the use of health economic evaluation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted using virtual conferencing technology. All participants were C-level employees of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with adequate knowledge of their company's overall strategy. Qualitative data were analyzed to reveal emerging themes. RESULTS: Interviews were performed with ten participants. Forty percent of participants rated themselves as having either minimal or basic knowledge of health economics. Thirty percent of participants had not pursued early economic evaluation of their device, while 90% rated health economics as being either "Quite important" or "Very important" to their company. The perception of increased barriers to successful device adoption in Canada relative to the USA was a prominent sentiment among participants, with 50% expressing discontentment with either the device approval process or health technology assessment process in Canada. Twenty percent stated that their primary target market involved the USA and/or other international jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: Canadian medical device innovators appear to understand the importance of health economic evaluation in the innovation process. However, they report difficulty with device approval and adoption, with some innovators focusing their efforts outside of Canada altogether. Further research should be directed toward understanding how to better support SMEs, given that they are a tremendous source of growth for the Canadian medical device industry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoEconomics - OpenSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207