Display options
Cite
Harris M, Weisberger E, Silver D, et al. That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study. Global Health. 2016;12(1):36doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7.
Harris, M., Weisberger, E., Silver, D., Dadwal, V., & Macinko, J. (2016). That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study. Globalization and health, 12(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7
Harris, Matthew, et al. "That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study." Globalization and health vol. 12,1 (2016): 36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7
Harris M, Weisberger E, Silver D, Dadwal V, Macinko J. That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study. Global Health. 2016 Jul 05;12(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7. PMID: 27381466; PMCID: PMC4932777.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Global Health. 2016 Jul 05;12(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7.

That's not how the learning works - the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study.

Globalization and health

Matthew Harris, Emily Weisberger, Diana Silver, Viva Dadwal, James Macinko

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Global Health Innovation, St Marys Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 INY and The School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstans Road, London, W6 8RP, UK. [email protected].
  2. Commonwealth Fund, 1 East 75th Street, New York, 10021, USA.
  3. Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health, New York University, 411 Lafayette Street, New York, 10003, USA.
  4. Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
  5. UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Center for Health Sciences, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. South, Room 31-235B, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA.

PMID: 27381466 PMCID: PMC4932777 DOI: 10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are significant differences in the meaning and use of the term 'Reverse Innovation' between industry circles, where the term originated, and health policy circles where the term has gained traction. It is often conflated with other popularized terms such as Frugal Innovation, Co-development and Trickle-up Innovation. Compared to its use in the industrial sector, this conceptualization of Reverse Innovation describes a more complex, fragmented process, and one with no particular institution in charge. It follows that the way in which the term 'Reverse Innovation', specifically, is understood and used in the healthcare space is worthy of examination.

METHODS: Between September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in the Reverse Innovation space in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also informants' experience and understanding of the term Reverse Innovation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.

RESULTS: We describe three main themes derived from the interviews. First, 'Reverse Innovation,' the term, has marketing currency to convince policy-makers that may be wary of learning from or adopting innovations from unexpected sources, in this case Low-Income Countries. Second, the term can have the opposite effect - by connoting frugality, or innovation arising from necessity as opposed to good leadership, the proposed innovation may be associated with poor quality, undermining potential translation into other contexts. Finally, the term 'Reverse Innovation' is a paradox - it breaks down preconceptions of the directionality of knowledge and learning, whilst simultaneously reinforcing it.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that this term means different things to different people and should be used strategically, and with some caution, depending on the audience.

Keywords: Developing countries; Diffusion of innovation; Evidence based medicine

References

  1. BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1183 - PubMed
  2. Global Health. 2013 Aug 30;9:40 - PubMed
  3. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Nov 08;3(6):297-9 - PubMed
  4. BMJ. 2001 Jan 20;322(7279):164-7 - PubMed
  5. Global Health. 2013 Aug 30;9:37 - PubMed
  6. BMJ. 2004 May 8;328(7448):1124-9 - PubMed
  7. World Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;2(3):162-3 - PubMed
  8. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 29;14:619 - PubMed
  9. BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1184 - PubMed
  10. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Mar 17;(3):CD004015 - PubMed
  11. Lancet. 2000 Nov 11;356(9242):1643-7 - PubMed
  12. J R Soc Med. 2011 Dec;104(12):501-9 - PubMed
  13. Lancet. 2007 Jun 23;369(9579):2121-31 - PubMed
  14. Sociol Health Illn. 2004 Sep;26(6):679-94 - PubMed
  15. Global Health. 2015 Feb 07;11:2 - PubMed
  16. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Feb 05;4(2):119-21 - PubMed
  17. World Psychiatry. 2006 Feb;5(1):21-4 - PubMed
  18. BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1183-4 - PubMed
  19. Global Health. 2013 Aug 30;9:36 - PubMed
  20. Global Health. 2012 Jun 18;8:17 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2008 Sep 27;372(9644):1151-62 - PubMed
  22. Am J Public Health. 1996 Jul;86(7):926-8 - PubMed
  23. BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1183 - PubMed
  24. Fam Pract. 2000 Oct;17 (5):361-3 - PubMed
  25. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008 Sep-Oct;27(5):1260-70 - PubMed
  26. BMJ. 2000 Sep 30;321(7264):830 - PubMed
  27. Clin Med (Lond). 2007 Jun;7(3):228-31 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types