The Allure of Clinical Innovation: Australian Doctors’ Perspectives on Its Definition, Drivers, and Oversight
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ThesisThesis type
Doctor of PhilosophyAuthor/s
Wiersma, MiriamAbstract
Introduction
Since the early 20th century there has been remarkable progress in medicine, with clinical innovations transforming medical practice. While clinician-led innovation may improve patient care and drive medical advancement, it is not without risk. Effective oversight ...
See moreIntroduction Since the early 20th century there has been remarkable progress in medicine, with clinical innovations transforming medical practice. While clinician-led innovation may improve patient care and drive medical advancement, it is not without risk. Effective oversight is, therefore, essential to protect the patients who receive innovative interventions, the doctors who develop and use them, and the institutions that offer them. This study examined Australia’s oversight system for clinical innovation, explored doctors’ views towards its definition, drivers and governance, and considered the implications of these insights for future research and policy. Methods This exploratory qualitative study consisted of three phases: establishing the background and conceptual foundation; conducting semi-structured interviews with thirty-one Australian doctors; and integrating these findings to develop recommendations for future research and policy. Results Doctors across diverse specialties largely agreed on the key features of clinical innovation, highlighted the complex interests and contextual factors shaping its use, and emphasised the need for robust oversight. However, limited awareness of local and state-based innovation policies, combined with Australia’s complex regulatory environment may impede compliance. Discussion and Conclusion The study demonstrates the value of moving beyond a siloed approach to clinical innovation by identifying substantial areas of consensus among doctors from different specialties, while also highlighting important differences—including medical oncologists’ distinct conceptualisation of clinical innovation. These findings point to the need for national level oversight that is broad enough to apply across medical specialties yet flexible enough to accommodate diverse contexts, alongside greater transparency in policy development and more strategic management of competing interests.
See less
See moreIntroduction Since the early 20th century there has been remarkable progress in medicine, with clinical innovations transforming medical practice. While clinician-led innovation may improve patient care and drive medical advancement, it is not without risk. Effective oversight is, therefore, essential to protect the patients who receive innovative interventions, the doctors who develop and use them, and the institutions that offer them. This study examined Australia’s oversight system for clinical innovation, explored doctors’ views towards its definition, drivers and governance, and considered the implications of these insights for future research and policy. Methods This exploratory qualitative study consisted of three phases: establishing the background and conceptual foundation; conducting semi-structured interviews with thirty-one Australian doctors; and integrating these findings to develop recommendations for future research and policy. Results Doctors across diverse specialties largely agreed on the key features of clinical innovation, highlighted the complex interests and contextual factors shaping its use, and emphasised the need for robust oversight. However, limited awareness of local and state-based innovation policies, combined with Australia’s complex regulatory environment may impede compliance. Discussion and Conclusion The study demonstrates the value of moving beyond a siloed approach to clinical innovation by identifying substantial areas of consensus among doctors from different specialties, while also highlighting important differences—including medical oncologists’ distinct conceptualisation of clinical innovation. These findings point to the need for national level oversight that is broad enough to apply across medical specialties yet flexible enough to accommodate diverse contexts, alongside greater transparency in policy development and more strategic management of competing interests.
See less
Date
2026Rights statement
The author retains copyright of this thesis. It may only be used for the purposes of research and study. It must not be used for any other purposes and may not be transmitted or shared with others without prior permission.Faculty/School
Faculty of Medicine and HealthDepartment, Discipline or Centre
Public HealthAwarding institution
The University of SydneyShare