Skip to main content

An Extended Hackathon Model for Collaborative Education in Medical Innovation

Journal of Medical Systems volume 42, Article number: 239 (2018) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 10 December 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

To support the next generation of healthcare innovators - whether they be engineers, designers, clinicians, or business experts by training – education in the emerging field of medical innovation should be made easily and widely accessible to undergraduate students, graduate students, and young professionals, early in their careers. Currently, medical innovation curricula are taught through semester-long courses or year-long fellowships at a handful of universities, reaching only a limited demographic of participants. This study describes the structure and preliminary outcomes of a 1–2 week “extended hackathon” course that seeks to make medical innovation education and training more accessible and easily adoptable for academic medical centers. Eight extended hackathons were hosted in five international locations reaching 245 participants: Beijing (June 2015 and August 2016), Hong Kong (June 2016, 2017, and 2018), Curitiba (July 2016), Stanford (October 2017), and São Paulo (May 2018). Pre- and post-hackathon surveys asking respondents to self-assess their knowledge in ten categories of medical innovation were administered to quantify the perceived degree of learning. Participants hailed from a diverse range of educational backgrounds, domains of expertise, and academic institutions. On average, respondents (n = 161) saw a greater than twofold increase (114.1%, P < 0.001) from their pre- to post-hackathon scores. In this study, the extended hackathon is presented as a novel educational model to teach undergraduate and graduate students a foundational skillset for medical innovation. Participants reported gaining significant knowledge across all ten categories assessed. To more robustly assess the educational value of extended hackathons, a standardized assessment for medical innovation knowledge needs to be developed, and a larger sample size of participants surveyed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Change history

  • 10 December 2018

    We append two additional funders to our acknowledgments.

References

  1. Yock, P. G., Brinton, T. J., and Zenios, S. A., Teaching biomedical technology innovation as a discipline. Sci. Transl. Med. 3(92):92cm18, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brinton, T. J., Kurihara, C. Q., Camarillo, D. B., Pietzsch, J. B., Gorodsky, J., Zenios, S. A., Doshi, R., Shen, C., Kumar, U. N., Mairal, A., Watkins, J., Popp, R. L., Wang, P. J., Makower, J., Krummel, T. M., and Yock, P. G., Outcomes from a postgraduate biomedical technology innovation training program: The first 12 years of Stanford biodesign. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41(9):1803–1810, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wall, J., Hellman, E., and Denend, L., et al., The impact of postgraduate health technology innovation training: Outcomes of the Stanford biodesign fellowship. Ann. Biomed. Eng. :1–9, 2016.

  4. Yock, P. G., Makower, J., Zenios, S. A. et al., Biodesign: Innovating new medical technologies. London: Cambridge Press, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Olson, K. R., Walsh, M., Garg, P., Steel, A., Mehta, S., Data, S., Petersen, R., Guarino, A. J., Bailey, E., and Bangsberg, D. R., Health hackathons: Theatre or substance? A survey assessment of outcomes from healthcare-focused hackathons in three countries. BMJ Innov. 3(1):37–44, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DePasse, J. W., Carroll, R., Ippolito, A. et al., Less noise, more hacking: How to deploy principles from MIT’s hacking medicine to accelerate health care. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Heal. Care 30(3):260–264, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Silver, J. K., Binder, D. S., Zubcevik, N., and Zafonte, R. D., Healthcare hackathons provide educational and innovation opportunities: A case study and best practice recommendations. J. Med. Syst. 40(7):177, 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kienzler, H., and Fontanesi, C., Learning through inquiry: A global health hackathon. Teach. Higher Edu. 22(2):129–142, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Youm, J., and Wiedchmann, W., The med AppJam: A model for an interprofessional student-centered mHealth app competition. J. Med. Syst. 39(3):34, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blank, S., Embrace failure to start up success. Nature 477(7363):133, 2011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beijing 2016 Extended Hackathon: Schedule. http://www.dhealthclass.com/schedule.html. Accessed December 30. 2016.

  12. Hong Kong 2017. Extended Hackathon. Schedule. http://mthackathon.info/MTHome/Program/Program.html. Accessed December 30. 2016.

  13. Gubin, T. A., Iyer, H. P., Liew, S. N., Sarma, A., Revelos, A., Ribas, J., Movassaghi, B., Chu, Z. M., Khalid, A. N., Majmudar, M. D., and Lee, C. (. X.)., A systems approach to healthcare innovation using the MIT hacking medicine model. Cell Syst. 5(1):6–10, 2017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants of the eight extended hackathons for helpful discussions and feedback.

Funding/Support

The authors received funding from the Stanford Center at Peking University (grant to Chang) and Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute to support the Beijing 2015 and 2016 courses. The authors also received funding from Tong Tai Zhong Yi for the Beijing 2016 course; Associated Medical Supplies Co Ltd., Defond, metos, Vincent Medical, SGS Hong Kong Limited, Terraillon, and MediConcepts for the Hong Kong 2016 course; Braile Biomedica, Phillips, Johnson & Johnson, and Hospital Marcelino Champagnat for the Curitiba 2016 course; Associated Medical Supplies Co Ltd., Defond, MediConcepts, metos, Vincent Medical, Terraillon, and SGS Hong Kong for the Hong Kong 2017 course; Boston Scientific Asia-Pacific for the Stanford 2017 course; the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein for the São Paulo 2018 course; and Dr. Zue Lo Shui-Shan and Persona Surgical Modelling Co. Ltd. for the Hong Kong 2018 course.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematical and Computational Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Jason K. Wang

  2. Stanford Byers Center for Biodesign, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Ravinder D. Pamnani, Robson Capasso & Robert T. Chang

  3. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Sleep Surgery Division, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Robson Capasso

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Robert T. Chang

  5. Stanford Byers Eye Institute, 2452 Watson Ct. MC 5353, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, USA

    Robert T. Chang

Authors
  1. Jason K. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravinder D. Pamnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robson Capasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert T. Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RTC, RDP, and RC developed the extended hackathon curriculum and framework, collaboratively hosted the eight extended hackathons, and administered the pre- and post-course assessments. JKW participated in the hackathon, wrote the manuscript, and interpreted results. All authors contributed to the review and approval of the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert T. Chang.

Ethics declarations

The survey was deemed to be a quality assurance tool. Results were collected in an anonymized fashion and were deemed to constitute minimal risk to participants. The study received a “not humans subjects” determination and was thus exempt from review per the Stanford Institutional Review Board.

Competing Interests

None declared.

Ethical Approval

As a quality improvement/program evaluation study, the protocol was considered exempt from review by the Stanford School of Medicine institutional review board.

Disclaimer

None.

Previous Presentations

None.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Education & Training

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, J.K., Pamnani, R.D., Capasso, R. et al. An Extended Hackathon Model for Collaborative Education in Medical Innovation. J Med Syst 42, 239 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1098-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1098-z

Keywords

  • Medical technology
  • Medical innovation
  • Medical education
  • Biodesign
  • Hackathon