Recipient organisationUniversity of ManchesterSource-published name: The University of Manchester
Funding£1.4M
PeriodOct 2014 — Jul 2019
In plain English
AI plain-English summary
A national policy to speed up medical innovations in the NHS is being put under a microscope to find out whether it actually works. The policy, called Innovation, Health and Wealth (IHW), aims to improve patient care and boost the economy, but no one has systematically checked if its actions are delivering those results or hitting hidden barriers. This matters because the NHS is under constant pressure to adopt new technologies and treatments, yet many promising innovations stall before reaching patients. Without understanding why some changes take hold while others fail, policymakers cannot fix the weak links. The research team will survey NHS organisations, conduct in-depth case studies, and interview national leaders over several years. They will use realist evaluation to map how context and local practices affect outcomes, and Normalisation Process Theory to explain why some innovations become routine while others are abandoned. If successful, this evaluation will give the Department of Health and NHS England a clear, evidence-based roadmap for refining the IHW policy. It could identify which specific actions—such as funding schemes, regulatory changes, or training programmes—are worth scaling up and which are wasting resources. The ultimate impact would be a more efficient innovation system that gets proven treatments and devices to patients faster, without the usual trial-and-error delays.
View original technical description
Background Innovation, Health and Wealth (IHW), a policy which aims to improve national health and wealth. It is important to see what is working well and to identify any barriers which impede the policy to improve its effectiveness. Aims The overall aim is to provide an assessment of the extent to which the IHW actions are working as planned and delivering outcomes as intended. Specifically, the evaluation aims to provide good theoretical understanding of whether and how change is caused and to identify weak links in the causal chain. Research plan and methods of investigation The evaluation is multi-method and longitudinal. It will use a national survey and interviews to map the national IHW landscape at the start of the study. This will be followed by 3 strands of work - in depth case studies, national interviews and quantification of impact. These will inform each other and be integrated to develop a national picture which will undergo sense checks using a stakeholder workshop. The evaluation will be underpinned by principles of realist evaluation which looks at relationships between contexts and mechanisms in relation to outcomes. Additionally, the study will use Normalisation Process Theory to inform understanding of responses to and implementation of IHW in practice. Research team This team has a track record of evaluating national policies using a combination of interviews, observations and data on NHS performance. It is also experienced in collecting data from NHS organisations across the country to construct a national picture of policy progress. In addition the team includes expertise in Implementation Science, Innovation Systems, Survey Research, Health Economic Modelling and manipulation of NHS data sets. A medical doctor who is the former head of the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement is also included. Potential impact/inlfuence in the relevant policy field, users and wider stakeholders In an evolving policy context there is a need to take stock and to assess the extent to which the IHW actions are working as planned and delivering outcomes as intended. In particular it is important to understand whether the overall programme has and can effectively overcome barriers to innovation, and how far implementation of the IHW actions individually and as a whole may be making a positive difference in the NHS and are contributing to economic growth. This research by providing good theoretical understanding of whether and how change is caused and identifying weak links in the causal chain will inform adaptation and evolution of the policy to increase benefits and reduce unintended consequences.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know