Authors’ reply to Hunter

m.harris@imperial.ac.uk We agree with Hunter that patients’ demands and expectations can propel the diffusion of innovations.12 He suggests that adoption of the Ponseti technique in the UK was driven to some extent by patient demand, despite the longstanding experience and evidence from contexts in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMJ (Online) 2020-01, Vol.368, p.m36-m36
Main Authors: Harris, Matthew, Skopec, Mark, Issa, Hamdi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Innovations
Low income groups
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:m.harris@imperial.ac.uk We agree with Hunter that patients’ demands and expectations can propel the diffusion of innovations.12 He suggests that adoption of the Ponseti technique in the UK was driven to some extent by patient demand, despite the longstanding experience and evidence from contexts in which it had been used extensively.345 Perhaps this was needed because techniques and innovations from these contexts are not taken seriously enough. Previous studies have shown that research from low income countries is discounted, and substantially so, by English clinicians and that a dramatic north-south divide exists in global research consumption.67 Hunter questions whether the Ponseti technique can be accurately described as a low income country innovation.1 We agree and highlighted in our article the challenge of defining some innovations as reverse innovations. Competing interests: MH is an honorary adviser for the Tropical Health Education Trust and a non-executive director of Primary Care International.
ISSN:1756-1833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.m36