Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of the Stanford Biodesign Framework in Healthcare Innovation Training and Commercialization of Market Appropriate Products: A Scoping Review

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Stanford Biodesign needs-centric framework can guide healthcare innovators to successfully adopt the ‘Identify, Invent and Implement’ framework and develop new healthcare innovations products to address patients’ needs. This scoping review explored the application of the Stanford Biodesign framework for healthcare innovation training and the development of novel healthcare innovative products. Seven electronic databases were searched from their respective inception dates till April 2023: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews and was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework. Findings were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework. Three themes and eight subthemes were identified from the 26 included articles. The main themes are: (1) Making a mark on healthcare innovation, (2) Secrets behind success, and (3) The next steps. The Stanford Biodesign framework guided healthcare innovation teams to develop new medical products and achieve better patient health outcomes through the induction of training programs and the development of novel products. Training programs adopting the Stanford Biodesign approach were found to be successful in improving trainees’ entrepreneurship, innovation, and leadership skills and should continue to be promoted. To aid innovators in commercializing their newly developed medical products, additional support such as securing funds for early start-up companies, involving clinicians and users in product testing and validation, and establishing new guidelines and protocols for the new healthcare products would be needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

References

  1. Schwarz T, Schmidt AE, Bobek J, Ladurner J. Barriers to accessing health care for people with chronic conditions: a qualitative interview study. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1):1037. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08426-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Augustin DA, Denend L, Wall J, Krummel T, Azagury DE. The Biodesign Model: Training Physician Innovators and Entrepreneurs. In: Cohen MS, Kao L, eds. Success in Academic Surgery: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019:71–88.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Day-Duro E, Lubitsh G, Smith G. Understanding and investing in healthcare innovation and collaboration. J Health Organ Manag 2020;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-07-2019-0206

  4. Augustin DA, Chertow GM, Azagury DE. Innovation in hemodialysis: Using the Biodesign process to identify unmet needs. J Vasc Access. 2021;22(4):509–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729820913692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brinton TJ, Kurihara CQ, Camarillo DB, et al. Outcomes from a postgraduate biomedical technology innovation training program: the first 12 years of Stanford Biodesign. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(9):1803–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0761-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nimgaonkar A, Yock PG, Brinton TJ, Krummel T, Pasricha PJ. Gastroenterology and biodesign: contributing to the future of our specialty. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(2):258–262. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ray PP, Amaral JF, Hinoul P. Innovation Best Practices in the Medical Device Industry. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;20(2):90–93. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2017.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rivers CA, Roher H, Boissonault BA, Klinger CA, Mirza RM, Foty R. Examining Fall Risk Assessment in Geriatric Rehabilitation Settings Using Translational Research. Rehabil Nurs. 2021;46(3):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/rnj.0000000000000259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz JG, Kumar UN, Azagury DE, Brinton TJ, Yock PG. Needs-Based Innovation in Cardiovascular Medicine: The Stanford Biodesign Process. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1(6):541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wall J, Wynne E, Krummel T. Biodesign process and culture to enable pediatric medical technology innovation. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015;24(3):102–106. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wynne EK, Krummel TM. Innovation within a university setting. Surgery. 2016;160(6):1427–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.06.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbazzeni B, Fritzsche H, Friebe M. Forecasting the Future of Healthcare Democratization Forecasting the Future of Healthcare Democratization. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering. 2021;7(2):155–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2021-2040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gough P, Yoo S, Tomitsch M, Ahmadpour N. Applying Bioaffordances through an Inquiry-Based Model: A Literature Review of Interactive Biodesign. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2021;37(17):1583–1597. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1898846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10). https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2020/10000/Updated_methodological_guidance_for_the_conduct_of.4.aspx

  17. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Vol 11: sage; 1988.

  18. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruzzi MS, Linehan JH. BioInnovate Ireland–fostering entrepreneurial activity through medical device innovation training. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(9):1834–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0787-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chaturvedi J, Logan A, Narayan G, Kuttappa S. A structured process for unmet clinical need analysis for medical device innovation in India: Early experiences. BMJ Innovations. 2015;1(3):81–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2014-000010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dharmawan R, Ho H, Ng HHM, Iyer NG, Tan HK, Tan NC. Implementing the Biodesign Process for Medical Device Innovation in Head and Neck Surgery. Surg Innov. 2020;27(6):653–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620943796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fritzsche H, Barbazzeni B, Mahmeen M, Haider S, Friebe M. A Structured Pathway Toward Disruption: A Novel HealthTec Innovation Design Curriculum With Entrepreneurship in Mind. Front Public Health. 2021;9:715768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.715768

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Fritzsche H, Mahbub E, Boese A, Friebe M. State-of-The-Art: Biodesign based Innovation Ecosystems in Europe. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering. 2021;7(2):231–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2021-2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fuerch JH, Wang P, Van Wert R, Denend L. Turning Practicing Surgeons Into Health Technology Innovators: Outcomes From the Stanford Biodesign Faculty Fellowship. Surg Innov. 2021;28(1):134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620984338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Greene A, Zhang Y, Asan O, et al. Successful application of the innovation process to a case of Floyd Type I tracheal agenesis. Surg Open Sci. 2023;11:73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sopen.2022.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kiriyama H, Kakihiana T, Maeda Y, et al. Cultivating design thinking skills through the biodesign process in Japan. BMJ Innovations. 2022;8(4):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J, et al. Inventing our future: Training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery. 2006;15(4):309–318. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2006.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Maloney LM, Hakimi M, Hays T, et al. Learning the Language of Medical Device Innovation: A Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Elective for Medical Students. Acad Med. 2022;97(9):1341–1345. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004723

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. McGloughlin EK, Anglim P, Keogh I, Sharif F. Innovation for the future of Irish MedTech industry: retrospective qualitative review of impact of BioInnovate Ireland’s clinical fellows. BMJ Innov. 2018;4(1):32–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nakao K, Umezu M, Iwasaki K. Biodesign program introduction in Japan: promotion of entrepreneurship and viewpoints of education on medical technology innovation. J Artif Organs. 2022;25(4):350–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-022-01317-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Perrone KH, Blevins KS, Denend L, Fan R, Huelman J, Wall JK. Initial experiences with virtual reality as a tool for observation in needs-driven health technology innovation. BMJ Innovations. 2020;6(1):10–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2018-000308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Preiksaitis C, Dayton JR, Kabeer R, Bunney G, Boukhman M. Teaching Principles of Medical Innovation and Entrepreneurship Through Hackathons: Case Study and Qualitative Analysis. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e43916. https://doi.org/10.2196/43916

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Robinson TN. A Biodesign Approach to Designing, Packaging, and Scaling a Pediatric Weight Management Program: The Stanford CORD 3.0 Project. Child Obes. 2021;17(S1):S79–s85. https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2021.0182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sista AK, Hwang GL, Hovsepian DM, et al. Applying a structured innovation process to interventional radiology: a single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(4):488–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.12.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wall J, Hellman E, Denend L, et al. The Impact of Postgraduate Health Technology Innovation Training: Outcomes of the Stanford Biodesign Fellowship. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(5):1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1777-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang JK, Pamnani RD, Capasso R, Chang RT. An Extended Hackathon Model for Collaborative Education in Medical Innovation. J Med Syst. 2018;42(12):239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1098-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bradbury-Jones C, Aveyard H, Herber OR, Isham L, Taylor J, O’Malley L. Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2021:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1899596

  38. Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: Transforming theory into practice. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(2):161–164. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.643264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Beauchamp MR, McEwan D, Waldhauser KJ. Team building: conceptual, methodological, and applied considerations. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017;16:114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. May ME. How intelligent constraints drive creativity. Harvard Business Review January. 2013;30.

  42. Njah J, Hansoti B, Adeyami A, et al. Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact. Ann Glob Health. 2021;87(1):63. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Gomez LE, Bernet P. Diversity improves performance and outcomes. J Natl Med Assoc. 2019;111(4):383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Drennan VM, Ross F. Global nurse shortages-the facts, the impact and action for change. Br Med Bull. 2019;130(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldz014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang X, Lin D, Pforsich H, Lin VW. Physician workforce in the United States of America: forecasting nationwide shortages. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-0448-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Gupta DM, Boland RJ, Aron DC. The physician’s experience of changing clinical practice: a struggle to unlearn. Implementation Science. 2017;12(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0555-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Perregrini M. Mitigating Resistance to Change in the Workplace. Creat Nurs. 2019;25(2):154–156. https://doi.org/10.1891/1078-4535.25.2.154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nicklin W, Hughes L. Patient Safety: We’ve Come a Long Way. Healthc Q. 2020;22(Sp):6–9. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2020.26051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5(4):371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kuhanesan Naidu S/O Chandra Naidu for his contribution as a secondary independent reviewer for this study.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Level 2, Clinical Research Centre, Block MD11, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore

    Joelle Yan Xin Chua & Shefaly Shorey

  2. Singapore Biodesign, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore

    Enci Mary Kan & Phin Peng Lee

  3. Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    Enci Mary Kan & Phin Peng Lee

Authors
  1. Joelle Yan Xin Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enci Mary Kan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phin Peng Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shefaly Shorey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.S. was responsible for the inception of idea for the review. S.S. and J.C. conducted the data search, data extraction, data analysis, wrote the first draft of the manuscript and reviewed the manuscript. M.K. and P.L. assisted in the data extraction, data analysis, and critically reviewed the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shefaly Shorey.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chua, J.Y.X., Kan, E.M., Lee, P.P. et al. Application of the Stanford Biodesign Framework in Healthcare Innovation Training and Commercialization of Market Appropriate Products: A Scoping Review. J Med Syst 48, 44 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02067-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02067-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation