International Research Partnerships

India spends more on healthcare each year but, the key question persists: are health outcomes improving at the same pace?   After six months of cross-sector collaboration, the report “𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵: 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮” has been released. It sets out a clear and strategic roadmap to help shift India’s health system from a volume-led approach to one centred on value and outcomes.   I am proud to have contributed to this unique coalition and to have shared perspectives from an insurer’s point of view. Months of structured, constructive dialogue and collaboration have helped reimagine the future roadmap of healthcare in India. With a ringside, three-tiered view of the ecosystem – across my organisation, the insurance sector, and the broader system – I was particularly invested in exploring avenues to strengthen health financing and drive sustainable outcomes.   Congratulations to Leapfrog to Value and its CEO Dr. Balkrishna Korgaonkar for spearheading this important effort and bringing together diverse voices across the healthcare ecosystem.   The coalition’s work identifies core systemic gaps such as fragmented care, limited transparency of outcomes, and financing structures that reward service volume over improved health. It also highlights promising bright spots across the system.   The initiative has resulted in four catalytic proposals: ✅ People’s Commission for Health Improvement – transparent benchmarking to strengthen accountability ✅ Primary Health Care Design Laboratory – prototyping integrated, outcome-focused care models ✅ Business Case for Quality, Safety & Patient Experience – aligning incentives with what truly matters to patients ✅ Coordinated Care Bundles – piloting bundled payments for NCDs and surgeries   The roadmap presents a practical agenda aimed at improving alignment, equity and measurable outcomes. It is an important step toward a more resilient and health-focused future for India.   You can download the strategy here: https://lnkd.in/gErbNiFV Bindu Ananth, Dr. N. Krishna Reddy, Ravi Vishwanath, Sarang Deo, Tejasvi Ravi, Vishnu Vasudev, Rubayat Khan, Dr. Balkrishna Korgaonkar and Chintan Maru.

The 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 (𝐏𝐑𝐨𝐅) teaching case shows how a large healthcare consortium and a small group of manufacturers collaborated to rethink innovation in a highly regulated sector. At its core, the case demonstrates how PRoF turned the interaction between two very different communities into its main innovation engine. The large consortium represents the healthcare user community: nurses, doctors, caregivers, patients, and hospital managers who express the lived reality of care. Their contribution is experiential and value-based. Through structured “brainwave sessions,” they surface latent needs and convert them into broad keywords such as comfort, privacy, dignity, or anti-loneliness. These keywords form a shared language that avoids technical jargon and allows hundreds of users with diverse perspectives to converge around common priorities. The small consortium consists of manufacturers, architects, and designers who have the capabilities to transform these user insights into concrete room concepts. Their commercial goals are kept strictly outside the creative process, allowing trust to grow between the groups. Once the user community defines the keywords, the producer community develops prototypes, after which the large consortium returns to evaluate and refine them. This modular sequencing keeps tensions low, ensures rapid progress, and prevents commercial logic from dominating user needs. The interaction between these two communities solves a longstanding problem in healthcare innovation: suppliers often misunderstand user needs, while users lack the means to innovate. PRoF bridges this gap by letting users drive ideation and letting producers translate that insight into solutions. What emerges is a genuinely user-oriented innovation ecosystem in which neither community could succeed alone, but together they generate concepts that reshape expectations of care design. You can find the case study at HBSP: https://lnkd.in/e6nxTFM7 #UserCentricInnovation #Collaboration #OpenInnovation #CrossCommunityCollaboration #HealthcareEcosystems #CoCreation #Ideation

Clinical trials have driven remarkable progress in haematology – but they don’t tell the whole story. To truly understand how treatments perform and where the greatest patient needs remain, we must go beyond the clinical trial setting. This is where real-world data (RWD) offers a powerful opportunity. We created HONEUR (Haematological Outcomes Network in Europe) – a pioneering federated data network – to leverage cutting-edge technology and bring together 27 haematology research partners from across Europe. By analysing data from diverse sources, HONEUR helps us stay up to date with current patient needs, identify harder-to-treat sub-populations, gain deeper insights into specific patient characteristics, and explore how different patterns of care and local treatment practices influence outcomes.    In a recent HONEUR study – first presented at the 2024 American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting – we looked at treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for over 28,000 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma between 2012-2023. One finding was particularly striking: the greatest improvements in overall survival and time to next treatment were observed in countries where earlier access to innovative therapies made it possible to replace older regimens.     This study – the largest cohort of European multiple myeloma patients to date – clearly demonstrates the value that innovative treatments can bring to patients. It also shows the power of collaboration through networks like HONEUR. Here’s a video snapshot of what HONEUR is all about.      And as European Hematology Association (EHA) 2025 kicks off, I’m keen to hear your thoughts on how real-world data is shaping your approach to oncology research and care. #EHA2025 #RWE #RWD #realworldevidence #realworlddata

Delighted to announce the publication of our mini-review: "Integrating Model-Informed Drug Development With AI: A Synergistic Approach to Accelerating Pharmaceutical Innovation", co-authored with Rukmini Kumar, Cynthia J. (CJ) Musante and Subha Madhavan! In this piece, we overview how the pharmaceutical industry can harness the power of Model-Informed Drug Development (#MIDD) alongside #AI techniques to revolutionize drug development processes. By merging mathematical modeling with AI's data-driven insights, we explore approaches that can optimize drug candidate selection, enhance treatment strategies, and ultimately accelerate innovation in the field. Key highlights include: - The potential of MIDD and AI to reduce costs and improve therapeutic outcomes. - Challenges such as data privacy, model interpretability, and algorithmic bias that need addressing. - Detailed Supplementary Table highlighting many synergy examples You can see the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gz_xyrTe #PharmaceuticalInnovation #AI #DrugDevelopment #MIDD #PersonalizedMedicine #DrugDiscovery

HEOR and VBHC We talk about the silos in health care delivery, but some rigid ones exist on the academic side, too. Example: VBHC and health economics and outcomes research (#HEOR). We nod to one another but rarely work together. A group of HEOR practitioners released a paper through ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research on applying HEOR methods within VBHC.  I personally view it as a bridge, an effort to connect, so I wanted to give the article some attention in the VBHC community. At its core, HEOR combines all the relevant outcomes of a treatment to a single number (e.g., Quality Adjusted Life Year) and rarely considers full cycle care. It is reductive. While a single number feels more authoritative and comparable (debate for another day?), that reductive approach masks insights needed for transformation. Profs. Elizabeth Teisberg and Michael Porter created a new academic field with the value movement. Their value framework was a more nuanced, generative approach than HEOR. Analyzing the outcomes that matter most to patients gives a multi-dimensional array of insights to make care more effective and efficient. Recall: value focuses first on outcomes, with better outcomes taking costs out of the system. But the value equation (change in outcomes that matter to patients for the cost of achieving outcomes) has non-commensurate variables; it doesn’t reduce to a number. That limits its use where quantitative results are important. This ISPOR paper acknowledges both perspectives and points out that while the approaches have significant differences, both “aim to improve the health of individuals and ensure the financial resilience of health care systems. . . promote transparency. . . and improve accountability.”  It urges HEOR practitioners to “accelerate the adoption of value-based incentives by joining forces with VBHC leaders in engaging policymakers to create the needed changes in structure and resource allocation.” That urging could go both ways. As an accounting geek, I cheered the paper's assertion that "being clear on the relevant cost perspective is important because in health care, costs, charges, reimbursements, and prices are often mistakenly discussed as one and the same." Admit it, folks: that's often missed! The authors challenge each side. HEOR should “expand the integration of patients’ perspectives.” The VBHC movement should “increase analytical rigor, transparency and consistency [in] its value assessment.” The bridge: "[It] would be helpful to uncover similarities and differences and seek to define a common set of useful standards to deploy across both fields of research." Let’s collaborate, not fight. There are real issues between the two approaches but advancing the purpose of health care – enhancing health, hope, and healing – could benefit from building on what each brings. I appreciate the outreach. Let's do more than nod at one another.

No single sector can deliver population health at scale. With up to 80% of health outcomes shaped by the conditions in which we live, work, and age, improving health is less a clinical problem than a coordination one — and coordination across the boundaries that usually keep us apart is what moves the needle. Public systems hold the mandate and reach entire populations. The private sector brings resources, technology, and the operational discipline to deliver. Academic institutions contribute the evidence base, rigorous evaluation, and the training of the people who will lead this work. None is sufficient alone. Aligned around a shared outcome and grounded in a specific place, together they produce what none could achieve separately. That is the conviction behind "Building coalitions for better health," the place-based, cross-sector report we've just released with the World Economic Forum and Deloitte. And it isn't theoretical. I see it in the work I'm fortunate to help guide: AI4HealthyCities, which applies data and cross-sector partnership to urban health in cities from Helsinki to Singapore to New York; and Meharry's HEART Initiative, building community-grounded coalitions to close cardiovascular disparities in Nashville, Detroit, and San Bernardino. Different places, same lesson — the most durable gains come when public mandate, private capability, and academic evidence are pointed at the same goal. The report and the Health for All programme explorer are linked below. Both worth your time. Read them, and then let's get to work! Explore the full report: https://delo.tt/6049B89W1t Database: https://lnkd.in/ggWtd-Vi #FutureOfHealth #PopulationHealth #CrossSectorCollaboration #PlaceBasedChange #AI4HealthyCities #HealthEquity #MeharrySchoolOfGlobalHealth #NovartisFoundation

🔍 New evidence on patient-reported measures in primary care — and why it matters for health system reform A scoping review just published in BMC Health Services Research offers the most comprehensive picture to date of how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are being systematically collected and used in primary care. After screening nearly 4,000 records, the authors identified 18 programmes across 9 countries — far more than previously documented at the meso and macro levels. The findings are instructive for anyone working on health system performance, value-based care, or primary care reform. **Three things stood out in the article:** 1. The gap between ambition and infrastructure is real. Most mature programmes — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, England — succeeded because of sustained public funding, legal mandates, and interoperability with national data systems. Ad hoc or grant-funded initiatives struggled to scale. Governance isn't a detail; it's the foundation. 2. PROMs and PREMs are not interchangeable. PROMs (health outcomes, quality of life, mental health) and PREMs (access, communication, continuity) capture different dimensions of care quality. Using only one gives you an incomplete picture. Sweden's experience showed PREMs were only weakly correlated with process measures — they're measuring something genuinely distinct. 3. Equity is the missing piece. Norway's data showed immigrant populations and people with multimorbidity consistently reported worse experiences. Yet most programmes still lack translated tools or culturally adapted instruments. Building equity monitoring *into* the design — not as an afterthought — is essential. The conclusion is clear: systematic integration of PROMs and PREMs in primary care is feasible, but it requires deliberate investment in digital infrastructure, stable governance, and meaningful patient and clinician engagement. As health systems face growing pressure to demonstrate value and address inequities, patient-reported data collected *routinely* in primary care could become one of our most powerful policy levers. Worth reading for anyone working at the intersection of primary care, performance measurement, and people-centred health systems. #PrimaryCare #HealthPolicy #PROMs #PREMs #ValueBasedCare #HealthSystems #PatientCentredCare #HealthReform

A Practical Guide to Using Qualitative Research with Randomized Controlled Trials by Alicia O’Cathain is organized into three main parts that provide both theoretical foundations and practical guidance for integrating qualitative methods into RCTs. The first part introduces the rationale for combining qualitative research with trials, outlines frameworks and study designs, and explains how qualitative approaches can contribute to generating evidence of effectiveness. It also discusses the use of qualitative research across different types of RCTs, paradigms, and theories underpinning interventions. The second part offers hands-on guidance, covering how to write proposals, select research questions, collect and analyze qualitative data, integrate qualitative and quantitative findings, publish journal articles, and assess the quality of qualitative work within trials. The third part emphasizes collaboration and impact, focusing on team working, engaging with key stakeholders, and influencing health, healthcare, and policy outcomes. Supported by references, abbreviations, and an index, the book provides a complete roadmap for researchers and practitioners who want to enrich RCTs with qualitative insights, ensuring that trials capture not only statistical outcomes but also the human and contextual dimensions that shape effectiveness.

Does interaction with a digital health app contribute to treatment effects? In our previous randomized controlled trial, we showed that CanRelax, a mobile health intervention with a conversational agent, can reduce distress in people with cancer. It was an important step in demonstrating that digital tools can meaningfully support psychological well-being. But it also raised a deeper question: 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵? In our newly published paper, we explored the role of the working alliance—how well users and the digital intervention align on goals, engage in the tasks required to achieve them, and form a bond with our chatbot Lumy. Our findings suggest that this interaction matters. A stronger working alliance with the CanRelax conversational agent was associated with better treatment outcomes, namely distress. In other words, even in a digital setting, the perceived interaction, such as feeling understood, supported, and guided, plays a meaningful role in how effective the intervention is. For the future of digital health interventions, this suggests that effective design requires not only clearly defined treatment elements, but also a clear concept for how to create connectedness between users and the application. A big thank you to all co-authors for their collaborative work Sonja Schläpfer, Jürgen Barth, Priska Heinz, Ulrike Held, Tobias Kowatsch, and to the Krebsforschung Schweiz for supporting this research. Read the full open-access paper, “Association between Working Alliance and Treatment Outcomes in a Mobile Health Intervention with a Conversational Agent (CanRelax)” https://lnkd.in/eTxyCEVM Read the original randomized controlled trial, “Mobile Health Intervention CanRelax Reduces Distress in People with Cancer” https://lnkd.in/eEYbpMQ8

Finally it is out! Please have a look at this article stemming from an interdisciplinary collaboration between physicians, public health experts and health economists - Sandy Tubeuf valéry ridde Joachim Sturmberg David Bell Lieven Annemans and Garrett W. Brown. We recall that global Health aspires to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities through two main approaches: one focused on health promotion and universal access to primary healthcare, and the other focused on disease control through a selection of cost-effective interventions. The 2024 Lancet Commission on Investing in Health (LCIH) report aims to halve premature deaths by 2050 by addressing 15 priority diseases with modular interventions. We argue that this modular approach is less likely to yield sustainable and equitable outcomes. This paper employs a reflexive, multidisciplinary, and complex adaptive systems approach to examine key concerns and methodological limitations of the “disease control lens” adopted by the 2024 LCIH report. We identify important methodological flaws in the LCIH’s approach – the overlooking of contextual causes and social determinants of health, narrow and biased use of economic evaluation, and inadequate understanding of the functioning of health systems – and propose alternatives. By prioritising discrete interventions and cost-effectiveness metrics, the LCIH risks reinforcing a fragmented, disease-specific perspective, yielding short-term gains while failing to address the underlying vulnerabilities, comorbidities, and social determinants that shape health outcomes. This approach persists not because it is more effective, but because it is more politically tractable in a system that values countable outputs over transformative change. As a conclusions, we advocate for reaching global health goals through a systemic and holistic approach, integrating intersectoral policies and health promotion to improve overall health and strengthen health systems based on community needs and local prioritisation exercises. As for official development assistance, it should focus on provision of direct financial and technical support to countries with the least resources to support domestic needs analysis, priority setting exercises and strengthening of social and primary health systems. https://lnkd.in/eGc-_54R