Table 1 Evaluation criteria
From: Reverse innovation: an opportunity for strengthening health systems
Criterion | Description | Value as a % of overall score |
|---|---|---|
1. Demonstrated Proof of Concept | Was there documented evidence that the innovation achieved impact in an emerging market/developing country context? For the purpose of the evaluation the notion of “documented” was considered broadly and included grey literature. | 10% |
2. Potential Value to Canadian Health Systems | Would the proposed innovation achieve value if applied in Canada and if so, would it deliver value - better outcomes or reduced cost, or both - if adopted in a health system context? | 25% |
3. Economic Impact if Implemented | What would be the economic impact for the Canadian economy if the innovation were to be implemented? Recognizing that this is potentially difficult to measure, for the purpose of the competition, this criterion was intended to ensure applicants considered broader technological, societal, economic and political considerations associated with the innovation. | 10% |
4. Feasibility | Did the applicants identify barriers, risks, challenges and enablers/strengths associated with the innovation and its adoption in the Canadian context and did they provide and strategies to either mitigate risks or leverage strengths? | 15% |
5. Potential for Scalability | Is there a clear path identified for scaling up the innovation across health systems, beyond a pilot project, at a broader system level? If so, what conditions, such as policy, reimbursement, education, culture, data, technology etc., need to be in place to scale the innovation. | 25% |
6. Use of Prize Money | How was the proposed budget going to be used to advance the proposed reverse innovation? This criterion was seeking a creative yet realistic use of fund and also served as a mechanism for accountability and transparency for sponsors of the competition. | 5% |
7. Innovation Team | The degree to which the team assembled represents key stakeholders in health systems (clinicians, industry leaders, policy makers, Canadians) to drive the adoption of the innovation. This criterion was aimed to drive partnership, collaboration and sharing of learnings across jurisdictions. Applicants with partnerships in emerging markets where the concept was developed and tested were weighted more heavily to stress the importance of and attempt to facilitate bi-directional learning. | 10% |