Innovation and commercialization in public health care systems: a review of challenges and opportunities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meghan Sebastianski,1 Donald Juzwishin,1 Ulrich Wolfaardt,2 Gary Faulkner,3 Kevin Osiowy,2 Peter Fenwick,2 Tracy Ruptash11Health Technology Assessment and Innovation, 2Major Initiatives, Alberta Health Services, 3Research and Technology Development, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Edmonton, AB, CanadaAbstract: Innovation has become the new panacea for addressing a plethora of health care delivery issues. In this review, we examine the relationship between health technology assessment and technology commercialization in the Canadian health care system to identify opportunities to improve access and quality of health care delivery. A selected literature review identifies the causes and contributing factors to the innovation and sustainability challenges facing our publicly funded health care system. Three case examples from Alberta in Canada provide insight into the barriers and opportunities encountered at different stages of technology diffusion and commercialization, illustrating that innovation and sustainable public health care can be complementary, not incompatible. This review provides guidance to future health care policy and decision makers on advancing thinking and practice about innovation, assessment, and value.Keywords: innovation, commercialization, Canada, public health care
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".