Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Who will be affected?
Readers: No access to all 28 journals. We recommend accessing our articles via PubMed Central
Authors: No access to the submission form or your user account.
Reviewers: No access to your user account. Please download manuscripts you are reviewing for offline reading before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Editors: No access to your user account to assign reviewers or make decisions.
Copyeditors: No access to user account. Please download manuscripts you are copyediting before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Pham Q, Wong D, Pfisterer KJ, Aleman D, Bansback N, Cafazzo JA, Casson AJ, Chan BC, Dixon WG, Kakaroumpas G, Lindner C, Peek N, Potts HW, Ribeiro B, Seto E, Stockton-Powdrell C, Thompson AJ, van der Veer SN
The Complexity of Transferring Remote Monitoring and Virtual Care Technology Between Countries: Lessons From an International Workshop
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
The complexity of transferring remote monitoring and virtual care technology between countries: lessons from an international workshop
Quynh Pham;
David Wong;
Kaylen J Pfisterer;
Dionne Aleman;
Nick Bansback;
Joseph A Cafazzo;
Alexander J Casson;
Brian CF Chan;
William G Dixon;
Gerasimos Kakaroumpas;
Claudia Lindner;
Niels Peek;
Henry WW Potts;
Barbara Ribeiro;
Emily Seto;
Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell;
Alexander J Thompson;
Sabine N van der Veer
ABSTRACT
International deployment of remote monitoring and virtual care (RMVC) technologies would efficiently harness their positive impact on outcomes. Since Canada and the UK have similar populations, healthcare systems, and digital health landscapes, transferring digital health innovations between them should be relatively straightforward. Yet, examples of successful attempts are scarce. In a workshop, we identified six differences that may complicate RMVC transfer between Canada and the UK, and provide recommendations for addressing. These key differences include: 1) minority groups, (2) physical geography, (3) clinical pathways, (4) value propositions, (5) governmental priorities and support for digital innovation, (6) regulatory pathways. We detail four broad recommendations to plan for sustainability including: the need to formally consider how highlighted country-specific recommendations may impact RMVC and contingency planning to overcome challenges; the need to map which pathways are available as an innovator to support cross-country transfer; the need to report on and apply learnings from regulatory barriers and facilitators so that everyone may benefit; and explore existing guidance to successfully transfer digital health solutions while developing further guidance (e.g., extending the NASSS framework for cross-country transfer). Finally, we present an ecosystem readiness checklist. Considering these recommendations will contribute to successful international deployment and increased positive impact of RMVC technologies.
Citation
Please cite as:
Pham Q, Wong D, Pfisterer KJ, Aleman D, Bansback N, Cafazzo JA, Casson AJ, Chan BC, Dixon WG, Kakaroumpas G, Lindner C, Peek N, Potts HW, Ribeiro B, Seto E, Stockton-Powdrell C, Thompson AJ, van der Veer SN
The Complexity of Transferring Remote Monitoring and Virtual Care Technology Between Countries: Lessons From an International Workshop