OBJECTIVES: Characterising and evaluating the holistic value of innovative healthcare technologies constitutes a crucial goal to maximize limited resources. However, there is a paucity of research attempting to systematically delve deeper into these characteristics of innovation. This review aims to describe the characteristics of healthcare innovation and how they have been defined, measured and/or valued from different perspectives.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and EconLit from inception to April 2021 to perform a 2-part systematic review. In the first part, studies that described healthcare innovation or its’ characteristics were included. Characteristics or definitions of innovation were extracted and conceptualized as attributes of innovation. In the second part, studies were included if they measured and/or valued the attributes of innovation.

RESULTS: In total, 101 articles were included in first part. Eight attributes describing innovation, i.e., novelty, step change, substantial benefits, an improvement over existing technologies, convenience and/or adherence, added value, acceptable cost, and uncounted benefits, were conceptualized. Seventeen articles were included in second part. When attributes were measured and traded-off relative to costs, they were defined as valuation. Substantial benefits and convenience and/or adherence attributes were measured by using adherence rate, life year/QALY gain, and overall innovativeness scale (e.g., point/binary scale). Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), rating, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC), were used to value either substantial benefits or the convenience and/or adherence from payer perspective. To adequately capture the innovation, MCDA was found as a commonly recommended approach.

CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight attributes of innovation and found only two attributes, substantial benefits, and the convenience and/or adherence, were measured and/or valued from payer perspective. Existing valuation methods failed to include patient’s, caregiver’s and societal’s perspectives. Further research is warranted to obtain a better understanding of the healthcare innovation by the multiple stakeholders’ perspectives.