Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOlson, Kristian Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Madelineen_US
dc.contributor.authorGarg, Priyaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSteel, Alexisen_US
dc.contributor.authorMehta, Sahilen_US
dc.contributor.authorData, Santorinoen_US
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, Rebeccaen_US
dc.contributor.authorGuarino, Anthony Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorBailey, Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.authorBangsberg, David Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-28T23:49:51Z
dc.date.issued2017en_US
dc.identifier.citationOlson, Kristian R, Madeline Walsh, Priya Garg, Alexis Steel, Sahil Mehta, Santorino Data, Rebecca Petersen, Anthony J Guarino, Elizabeth Bailey, and David R Bangsberg. 2017. “Health hackathons: theatre or substance? A survey assessment of outcomes from healthcare-focused hackathons in three countries.” BMJ Innovations 3 (1): 37-44. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000147.en
dc.identifier.issnen
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:31731765
dc.description.abstractBackground: Healthcare-focused hackathons are 48-hour platforms intended to accelerate novel medical technology. However, debate exists about how much they contribute to medical technology innovation. The Consortium for Affordable Medical Technologies (CAMTech) has developed a three-pronged model to maximise their effectiveness. To gauge the success of this model, we examined follow-up outcomes. Methods: Outcomes of 12 hackathons from 2012 to 2015 in India, Uganda and the USA were measured using emailed surveys. To minimise response bias, non-responding teams were coded as having made no progress. Results: 331 individuals provided information on 196 of 356 projects (55.1% response rate), with no difference in responses from teams participating in different countries (Cramer's V=0.09, p=0.17). 30.3% of projects had made progress after a mean of 12.2 months. 88 (24.7%) teams had initiated pilot testing, with 42 (11.8%) piloting with care providers and 24 (6.7%) with patients. Overall, 97 teams (8.1 per hackathon) drafted business plans, 22 (1.8 per hackathon) had filed patents on their innovations and 15 (1.3 per hackathon) had formed new companies. Teams raised US$64.08 million in funding (average US$5.34 million per hackathon; median award size of $1800). In addition, 108 teams (30.3%) reported at least one member working on additional technologies with people they met at a hackathon. Individual confidence to address medical technology challenges was significantly increased after attending (t(1282)=192.77, p 0.001). Conclusion: CAMTech healthcare hackathons lead to consistent output with respect to medical technology innovation, including clinical trials, business plan development, securing investment capital/funding and new company formation.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000147en
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5293858/pdf/en
dash.licenseLAAen_US
dc.subjecthackathonsen
dc.subjectmedical devicesen
dc.subjectinnovationsen
dc.subjectlow and middle income countriesen
dc.subjectvalueen
dc.titleHealth hackathons: theatre or substance? A survey assessment of outcomes from healthcare-focused hackathons in three countriesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden
dc.relation.journalBMJ Innovationsen
dash.depositing.authorOlson, Kristian Ren_US
dc.date.available2017-03-28T23:49:51Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000147*
dash.contributor.affiliatedOlson, Kristian


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record