In 2022, the article “Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review” was published. Several members of our unit are part of the team that wrote it.
- Ali Ben Charif
- Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun
- Amédé Gogovor
- Mamane Abdoulaye Samri
- José Massougbodji
- Luke Wolfenden
- Jenny Ploeg
- Merrick Zwarenstein
- Andrew J. Milat
- Nathalie Rheault
- Youssoufa M. Ousseine
- Jennifer Salerno
- Maureen Markle-Reid
- France Légaré
Ben Charif, A., Zomahoun, H. T. V., Gogovor, A., Samri, M. A., Massougbodji, J., Wolfenden, L., Ploeg, J., Zwarenstein, M., Milat, A. J., Rheault, N., Ousseine, Y. M., Salerno, J., Markle-Reid, M., & Légaré, F. (2020). Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 15(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-00983-3 [www.nature.com]
Context
Over the past decade, interest in scaling innovations to strengthen health systems has grown. However, the lack of appropriate methods to determine their scalability potential remains a major global barrier. This systematic review aimed to identify tools proposed for assessing the scalability of health innovations.
Method
The authors conducted searches in seven relevant databases. They also consulted pertinent websites, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. Two reviewers selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of the tools.
Results
Thirty-one reports describing twenty-one tools were identified. These tools took the form of criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%), or checklists (19.0%), and were mostly published after 2010, open access, and funded by governmental or non-governmental organizations. All were in English, and four had been translated into French or Spanish. Tool development involved a single stakeholder type (23.8%), multiple types (19.0%), or no reported involvement (57.1%). No tool was developed with the participation of patients or citizens, nor did any mention the gender of the developers. The tools targeted various geographic contexts and levels of care, but most provided little information on content validity, and no additional psychometric properties were reported. Overall methodological quality was rated as inadequate or questionable.
Conclusion
This systematic review identified available tools for assessing the scalability of health innovations. Existing tools currently offer limited utility. Further work is needed to establish key psychometric properties of these tools.