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 Chan; William Dixon; Gerasimos Kakaroumpas; Claudia Lindner; Niels Peek; Henry Ww Potts; Barbara Ribeiro; Emily Seto; Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell; Alexander Thompson; Sabine van der Veer

doi:10.2196/46873

The Complexity of Transferring Remote Monitoring and Virtual Care Technology Between Countries: Lessons From an International Workshop

J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 1:25:e46873. doi: 10.2196/46873.

Authors

Quynh Pham^{1

2

3}, David Wong^{4

5}, Kaylen J Pfisterer^#^{1

6}, Dionne Aleman^{2

7}, Nick Bansback⁸, Joseph A Cafazzo^{1

2}, Alexander J Casson^{9

10}, Brian Chan¹¹, William Dixon¹², Gerasimos Kakaroumpas¹³, Claudia Lindner⁵, Niels Peek⁵, Henry Ww Potts¹⁴, Barbara Ribeiro¹⁵, Emily Seto^{1

2}, Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell⁵, Alexander Thompson¹⁶, Sabine van der Veer⁵

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Digital Therapeutics, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
² Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
³ Tefler School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
⁴ Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
⁵ Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
⁶ Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
⁷ Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁸ School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
⁹ Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
¹⁰ EPSRC Henry Royce Institute, Manchester, United Kingdom.
¹¹ KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
¹² Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
¹³ Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
¹⁴ Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
¹⁵ Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
¹⁶ Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 37526964
PMCID: PMC10427929
DOI: 10.2196/46873

Abstract

International deployment of remote monitoring and virtual care (RMVC) technologies would efficiently harness their positive impact on outcomes. Since Canada and the United Kingdom have similar populations, health care 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 6 differences that may complicate RMVC transfer between Canada and the United Kingdom and provided recommendations for addressing them. These key differences include (1) minority groups, (2) physical geography, (3) clinical pathways, (4) value propositions, (5) governmental priorities and support for digital innovation, and (6) regulatory pathways. We detail 4 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 the need to explore existing guidance to successfully transfer digital health solutions while developing further guidance (eg, extending the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability framework for cross-country transfer). Finally, we present an ecosystem readiness checklist. Considering these recommendations will contribute to successful international deployment and an increased positive impact of RMVC technologies. Future directions should consider characterizing additional complexities associated with global transfer.

Keywords: digital health innovation; digital health intervention; digital health landscape; digital health solution; health care system; regulatory pathway; remote monitoring; technology transfer; virtual care.

©Quynh Pham, David Wong, Kaylen J Pfisterer, Dionne Aleman, Nick Bansback, Joseph A Cafazzo, Alexander J Casson, Brian Chan, William Dixon, Gerasimos Kakaroumpas, Claudia Lindner, Niels Peek, Henry WW Potts, Barbara Ribeiro, Emily Seto, Charlotte Stockton-Powdrell, Alexander Thompson, Sabine van der Veer. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 01.08.2023.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Checklist
Delivery of Health Care*
Humans
Technology
Telemedicine*
United Kingdom

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding