scholarly journals Social innovation research checklist: A crowdsourcing open call and digital hackathon to develop a checklist for research to advance social innovation in health

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eneyi Kpokiri ◽  
Elizabeth Chen ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Sarah Payne ◽  
Priyanka Shrestha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
User Engagement ◽  
List Type ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Social Innovations

AbstractWhile social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovations. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. This article describes the development of a 17-item social innovation in health research checklist to assess and report social innovation projects and provides examples of good reporting. The checklist is adapted from the TIDieR checklist and will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting and increase end user engagement.Summary pointsWhile many social innovations have been developed and shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate social innovationThe Social Innovation in Health Research Checklist, the first of its kind, is a 17-item checklist to improve reporting completeness and promote transparency in the development, implementation, and evaluation of social innovations in healthThe research checklist was developed through a three-step process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a three-round modified Delphi processUse of this research checklist will enable researchers, innovators and partners to learn more about the process and results of social innovation in health research

scholarly journals Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR): Development of the SIFHR Checklist

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. e1003788
Author(s):  
Eneyi E. Kpokiri ◽  
Elizabeth Chen ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Sarah Payne ◽  
Priyanka Shrestha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
User Engagement ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation in health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

scholarly journals SOCIAL INNOVATION: TOWARDS A NEW INNOVATION PARADIGM

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 20-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
JÜRGEN HOWALDT ◽  
DMITRI DOMANSKI ◽  
CHRISTOPH KALETKA
Keyword(s):  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
High Dependency ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
Global Mapping ◽  
Methodological Aspects

ABSTRACT Purpose: Against the backdrop of clear paradoxes and confusion in prevailing innovation policies, the contours of a new innovation paradigm, as elaborated in this paper, are becoming visible and causing social innovation to grow in importance. Originality/gap/relevance/implications: However, innovation research is still lacking sustained and systematic analysis of social innovation, its theories, characteristics, and impacts. The purpose of this paper is to focus on a theoretically sound concept of social innovation as a precondition for an integrated theory of socio-technological innovation in which social innovation is more than an appendage of technological innovation. Key methodological aspects: The paper presents first empirical results of the global research project "SI-DRIVE: Social Innovation - Driving Force of Social Change" and introduces key findings of a global mapping of social innovation initiatives. This quantitative mapping is based upon 1.005 social innovation initiatives. Summary of key results: The mapping underlines the broad range of actors involved in the mapped initiatives and thereby confirms the need for a cross-sectoral concept of social innovation. It reveals a high diversity of social needs and societal challenges addressed by the initiatives as well as a high dependency on networks. The results also show that 90% of the initiatives are scaling. Key considerations/conclusions: Finally, on the basis of these empirical results, a recourse to Gabriel Tarde's social theory allows us to widen a perspective which was narrowed to economic and technological innovations by Schumpeter and after him by the sociology of technology, and to include social innovations in all their diversity.

Empirical Approaches to Social Innovation

2019 ◽  
pp. 80-106
Author(s):  
Georg Mildenberger ◽  
Gudrun-Christine Schimpf ◽  
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti ◽  
Nadia von Jacobi
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Study ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
Abstract Categories ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Empirical Approaches ◽  
Method Approach ◽  
Oriented Approach

This chapter describes two empirical approaches with which social innovation and its potentially transformative role can be studied. Both are oriented towards the Extended Social Grid Model (ESGM) and strive to bring its abstract categories on the ground and facilitate empirical analyses; first an analysis of long-term comprehensive case studies; and second a mixed-method approach inspired by the capability approach for evaluating the impact of social innovations. Both approaches enter new ground in social innovation research and supply valuable insights into the nature of social innovation and how it can be examined. The historical approach reveals the complexities of social innovation trajectories; the agency oriented approach of the more quantitative study opens new paths for a measurement of social innovation impacts that can be applied in many situations.

scholarly journals Transformative Social Innovation and Multisystemic Resilience

2021 ◽  
pp. 493-506
Author(s):  
Katharine McGowan ◽  
Francis Westley
Keyword(s):  
National Parks ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intelligence Test ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
The Relationship

To illustrate the relationship between transformative social innovation and multisystem resilience, this chapter summarizes three transformative social innovations, the National Parks in the United States, the internet, and the challenging or social engineering–like case of the intelligence test. Each case study demonstrates how innovations shift several systems as they develop, scale up, and even became challenged themselves, as well as the authors’ overarching assertion that transformative social innovation and multisystem resilience are deeply interrelated. Additionally, it is by understanding our social innovation history that we can be better prepared for our future and avoid the pitfalls of social innovation’s underappreciated dark side, the risk of social engineering. This chapter is based on over a decade of work on multisystem resilience and social innovation at the Waterloo Institute of Social Innovation and Resilience.

scholarly journals From what we know to what we do: enhancing absorptive capacity in translational health research

BMJ Leader ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Graeme Currie ◽  
Tina Kiefer ◽  
Dimitrios Spyridonidis
Keyword(s):  
Absorptive Capacity ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
System Level ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Knowledge Brokers ◽  
Research Initiatives

BackgroundGlobally, evidence about what works is slow to translate into frontline healthcare delivery. As a response, government policy has focused on translational health initiatives, such as the National Institute for Health Research funded Applied Research Collaborations in England. Concepts from organisation science prove useful to support such translational initiatives. We critique the application of two organisation science concepts linked to the broad domain of what is commonly termed ‘knowledge mobilisation’ in healthcare settings, specifically ‘knowledge brokers’ and ‘absorptive capacity’, to provide lessons for leaders of translational initiatives.ResultsThe presence of knowledge brokers to ‘move from what we know to what we do’ in healthcare delivery appears necessary but insufficient to have a system level effect. To embed knowledge brokers in the wider healthcare system so they draw on various sources of evidence to discharge their role with greatest effect, we encourage leaders of translational health research initiatives to take account of the concept of absorptive capacity (ACAP) from the organisation science literature. Leaders should focus on enhancing ACAP though development of ‘co-ordination capabilities’. Such co-ordination capability should aim not just to acquire different types of evidence, but to ensure that all types of evidence are used to develop, implement and scale up healthcare delivery that best benefits patients. Specific co-ordination capabilities that support translation of evidence are: clinician involvement in research and its implementation; patient and public involvement in research and its implementation; business intelligence structures and processes at organisational and system level.ConclusionAttention to the dimensions and antecedents of ACAP, alongside the implementation of the knowledge brokering solution, in translational health research initiatives, is likely to better ensure the latter’s success.

Modalities of governing the welfare mix

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-90
Author(s):  
Stijn Oosterlynck ◽  
Pieter Cools
Keyword(s):  
Social Action ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
Welfare Mix ◽  
Micro Level

To address unmet social needs and tackle complex societal challenges, social innovation initiatives often mobilise new actors, resources and/or approaches within specific fields of social action. Changing welfare mixes and the governance of various actors, instruments and resources are therefore key concerns for social innovation research. In this chapter, we analyse the changing welfare mixes in social innovation initiatives and their governance on the micro-level by looking at the networks of organisations and institutions behind these initiatives. We provide a descriptive analysis of the different welfare mixes of social innovation initiatives and their strategies and mode of governance and identify patterns and typologies in the governance of local social innovations. Particular attention is attributed to the role of public actors, resources and instruments. We use our empirical findings to assess the main tendencies on changing welfare mixes as identified in the scholarly literature.

Are Ethnic Entrepreneurs Social Innovators? Turkish Migrant Entrepreneurs in Salzburg

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-371
Author(s):  
Heiko Berner
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Labour Market Situation ◽  
Ethnic Business ◽  
Turkish Migrants ◽  
Social Innovations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ethnic Businesses

Social innovations are targeted measures that are capable to resolve social problems (Rammert 2010) and they are directed towards an improvement of the situation (Gillwald 2000). Finally, they are directed towards an amelioration of the situation (Gillwald 2000). In Austria it is argued that ethnic business represents a type of social innovation (Haberfellner 2000). The question the paper addresses is if and to what extent ethnic business goes hand in hand with social developments and possibly boosts social change. Entrepreneurs of Turkish origin in Salzburg are the focus of analysis. The paper starts with a definition of the term ‚social innovation‘ (1), the issues of ethnic vs. migrant business (2.), followed by the description of the labour market situation of Turkish migrants in Salzburg and discrimination in the labour market (3.), and, to to round up, the analysis of biographic interviews with Turkish entrepreneurs in Salzburg (4.). The preliminary results show that there exist social problems such as the lower socio-economic situation of Turkish migrants in Salzburg and discrimination in the labour market. These problems can be seen as basis for the need of social innovations. But nevertheless Turkish run ethnic businesses in a strict sense of the word are no social innovation because they do not act against the problems in an intended way; they rather work on their own account. They may overcome disadvantages on the labour market but their actions are not directed towards overcoming the problem per se. It is much rather a transintentional aspect (Schimank 2010), which goes beyond the economic interest of the actors.

International Health Research Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
International Research ◽  
International Health ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Health research funded by organizations from HICs and conducted in low- and middle-income countries has grown significantly since 1990. Power imbalances and inequities frequently (but not always) exist at each stage of the international research process. Unsurprisingly then, a variety of ethical concerns commonly arise in the context of international health research, such as inequities in funding, the semi-colonial nature of international research models, the brain drain of low- and middle-income country researchers, and inequities in partnerships between HIC and low- and middle-income country researchers. In this chapter, these (and other) ethical concerns are introduced and the following ethical concepts to address the concerns are then discussed: responsiveness, standard of care, benefit sharing, community engagement, and social value. Existing guidance and remaining debates about how to specify each of the concepts are summarized. The chapter concludes by highlighting the existence of epistemic injustices within the field of international research ethics.

Health research capacity in Nepal: Analysis of the trend and the role of local researchers

2021 ◽  
pp. 004947552098277
Author(s):  
Madhu Kharel ◽  
Alpha Pokharel ◽  
Krishna P Sapkota ◽  
Prasant V Shahi ◽  
Pratisha Shakya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Evidence-based decision-making is less common in low- and middle-income countries where the research capacity remains low. Nepal, a lower-middle-income country in Asia, is not an exception. We conducted a rapid review to identify the trend of health research in Nepal and found more than seven-fold increase in the number of published health-related articles between 2000 and 2018. The proportion of articles with Nepalese researchers as the first authors has also risen over the years, though they are still only in two-thirds of the articles in 2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document