‘They hear “Africa” and they think that there can’t be any good services’ – perceived context in cross-national learning: a qualitative study of the barriers to Reverse Innovation

Globalization and Health

James Macinko³  Diana Silver²  Emily Weisberger⁴  Matthew Harris¹ 

[1] Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Division of Surgery, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK;Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health, New York University, 411 Lafayette Street, New York 10003, USA;UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E. Young Dr. South, Room 31-235B, Center for Health Sciences, Los Angeles 90095-1772, CA, USA;Commonwealth Fund, 1 East 75th Street, New York 10021, USA

关键词: Evidence based medicine;    Diffusion of innovation;    Bias;    Peer review;   

Others  :  1233692
DOI  :  10.1186/s12992-015-0130-z

 received in 2015-05-29, accepted in 2015-11-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Country-of-origin of a product can negatively influence its rating, particularly if the product is from a low-income country. It follows that how non-traditional sources of innovation, such as low-income countries, are perceived is likely to be an important part of a diffusion process, particularly given the strong social and cognitive boundaries associated with the healthcare professions.

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 Reverse Innovation 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 to understand whether, in their experience translating or attempting to translate innovations from low-income contexts into the US, the source of the innovation matters in the adopter context. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.

Results

Our findings show that innovations from low-income countries tend to be discounted early on because of prior assumptions about the potential for these contexts to offer solutions to healthcare problems in the US. Judgments are made about the similarity of low-income contexts with the US, even though this is based oftentimes on flimsy perceptions only. Mixing levels of analysis, local and national, leads to country-level stereotyping and missed opportunities to learn from low-income countries.

Conclusions

Our research highlights that prior expectations, invoked by the Low-income country cue, are interfering with a transparent and objective learning process. There may be merit in adopting some techniques from the cognitive psychology and marketing literatures to understand better the relative importance of source in healthcare research and innovation diffusion. Counter-stereotyping techniques and decision-making tools may be useful to help decision-makers evaluate the generalizability of research findings objectively and transparently. We suggest that those interested in Reverse Innovation should reflect carefully on the value of disclosing the source of the innovation that is being proposed, if doing so is likely to invoke negative stereotypes.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Harris et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C. The (non) spread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Acad Manag J. 2005; 48:117-34.
• [2]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004; 82(4):581-629.
• [3]Peterson, Robert A, Alain J, Jolibert P. A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects. J Int Bus Stud. 1995; 26(4):883-900.
• [4]Bilkey W, Nes E. Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. J Int Bus Stud. 1982; 13(1):89-100.
• [5]Martin B, Lee MSW, Lacey C. Countering negative country of origin effects using imagery processing. J Consumer Behav. 2011; 10:80-92.
• [6]Hong ST, Wyer RS. Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute information on product evaluation: an information-processing perspective. J Consum Res. 1989; 16:175-87.
• [7]Gurhan-Canli Z, Maheswaran D. Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations. J Consum Res. 2000; 27:96-108.
• [8]Gurhan_Canli Z, Maheswaran D. Cultural variations in country-of-origin effects. J Mark Res. 2000; 37:309-17.
• [9]Min Han C. Assessing the roles of cognitions, country of origin, consumer patriotism, and familiarity in consumer attitudes toward foreign brands. In: AP - Asia pacific advances in consumer research. Cote JA, Siew Meng L, editors. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT; 1994: p.103-8.
• [10]Bodenhausen G, Wyer R. Effects of stereotypes in decision making and information-processing strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985; 48(2):267-82.
• [11]Gorham BW. Considerations of media effects: the social psychology of stereotypes: implications for media audiences, beyond blackface: Africana images in U.S. Media. Kendall Hunt Publishing, Houston; 2010.
• [12]McGivern G, Dopson S. Inter-epistemic power and transforming knowledge objects in a biomedical network. Organ Stud. 2010; 31(12):1667-86.
• [13]Crisp N. Turning the World Upside Down. RSM books; London, UK. Jan 2010
• [14]Abeygunasekera A. Effective surgery can be cheap and innovative. BMJ. 2004; 329:1185.
• [15]Dogra N, Omigbodun O. Partnerships in mental heatlh are possible without multidisciplinary teams. BMJ. 2004; 329:1184.
• [16]McKenzie K, Patel V, Araya R. Learning from low income countries: mental health. BMJ. 2004; 329:1138.
• [17]Swartz HA, Rollman BL. Managing the global burden of depression: lessons from the developing world. World Psychiatry. 2003; 2:3.
• [18]Susser E, Collins P, Schanzer B, Varma V, Gittelman M. Topics for our times: can we learn from the care of persons with mental illness in developing countries? Am J Public Health. 1996; 86:7.
• [19]Rosen A. Destigmatizing day-to-day practices: what developed countries can learn from developing countries. World Psychiatry. 2006; 5:1.
• [20]Haines A, Sanders D, Lehmann U, Rowe A, Lawn J, Jan S et al.. Achieving child survival goals: potential contribution of community health workers. Lancet. 2007; 369:2121-31.
• [21]Haider R, Ashworth A, Kabir I, Huttly SR. Effect of community based peer counsellors on exclusive breastfeeding practices in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 356(9242):1643-7.
• [22]Kumar V, Mohanty S, Kumar A, Misra RP, Santosham M, Awasthi S et al.. Effect of community-based behaviour change management on neonatal mortality in Shivgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008; 372(9644):1151-62.
• [23]Syed S, Dadwal V, Martin G. Reverse innovation in global health systems: towards global innovation flow. Glob Health. 2013; 9:36.
• [24]DePasse JW, Lee PT. A model for “reverse innovation” in health care. Glob Health. 2013; 9:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, New York; 1985.
• [26]Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago; 1967.
• [27]Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis – an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif; 1994.
• [28]Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice – a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage Publications, London; 2003.
• [29]Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London; 1998.
• [30]McGill E, Egan M, Petticrew M, Mountford L, Milton S, Whitehead M et al.. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015; 5:e007053.
• [31]Johnson C, Noyes J, Haines A, Thomas K, Stockport, Harris M. Learning from the Brazilian community health worker model in North Wales. Glob Health. 2013; 9:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Harris M, Macinko J, Jimenez G, Mahfoud M, Anderson C. Does a research article’s country of origin affect perception of its quality and relevance? A national trial of US public health researchers. BMJ Open 2015 (in press)
• [33]Nosek B, Banaji M, Greenwald A. Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dyn: Theory, Res Pract. 2002; 6(1):101-15.
• [34]Greenwald A, Banaji M. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev. 1995; 102(1):4-27.
• [35]Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31.
• [36]Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York; 1995.
• [37]Mascia D, Di Vincenzo F, Iacopino V, Fantini MP, Cicchetti A. Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: the impact of institutional and professional homophily. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 10:15-92.
• [38]McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001; 27:415-44.
• [39]Alstott J, Madnick S, Velu C. Homophily and the speed of social mobilization: the effect of acquired and ascribed traits. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(4):e95140.
• [40]Damon C. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science. 2011; 334(6060):1269.
• [41]Dandonoli P. Open innovation as a new paradigm for global collaborations in health. Glob Health. 2013; 9:41. BioMed Central Full Text