Commercialisation of eHealth Innovations in the Market of UK Healthcare Sector: A Framework for Sustainable Business Model.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Festus Oluseyi Oderanti, and Feng Li, ‘Commercialization of eHealth innovations in the market of the UK healthcare sector: A framework for a sustainable business model’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 35 (2): 120-137, February 2018, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21074. Under embargo until 10 January 2020. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.Demographic trends with extended life expectancy are placing increasing pressures on the UK state-funded healthcare budgets. eHealth innovations are expected to facilitate new avenues for cost-effective and safe methods of care, for enabling elderly people to live independently at their own homes and for assisting governments to cope with the demographic challenges. However, despite heavy investment in these innovations, large-scale deployment of eHealth continues to face significant obstacles, and lack of sustainable business models (BMs) is widely regarded as part of the greatest barriers. Through various empirical methods that include facilitated workshops, case studies of relevant organizations, and user groups, this paper investigates the reasons the private market of eHealth innovations has proved difficult to establish, and therefore it develops a framework for sustainable BMs that could elimiesnate barriers of eHealth innovation commercialization. Results of the study suggest that to achieve sustainable commercialization, BM frameworks and innovation diffusion characteristics should be considered complements but not substitutes.Peer reviewe

Well-being Budgets and Perceived Quality of Life

fals

The National Wellbeing Index in the isiXhosa translation: focus group discussions on how South Africans view the quality of their society

publisher versionThe International Wellbeing Index covers two complementary measures, the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and the National Wellbeing Index (NWI). The focus group study reported here tested the understanding of the NWI when translated into isiXhosa, a language spoken by 6 million South Africans, or 16% of the country’s population. A challenge for the NWI in measuring national well-being is the tendency for meaning to get ‘lost in translation’ in the wording of the instrument, owing to the disparities that exist between levels of living in developed and developing nations. The focussed discussions with native isiXhosa speakers conveyed the different shades of meaning associated with the six domains that make up the NWI. The isiXhosa keywords for the domains of social conditions, the natural environment, national security, and management of the country’s affairs (government) were readily understood, but discussants asked for further clarification of keywords for the domains relating to the economy and business. Conversations showed up the close link between personal and national well-being: discussants drew upon their personal and parochial life experiences along with their knowledge of current affairs to evaluate the nation’s quality of life. They described the social contract between citizens and their government to create a ‘caring society’ that promotes well-being across key domains of national life. Many of the reference standards used to evaluate national well-being were ones postulated to influence personal well-being (Michalos A.C, Social Indicators Research 16(4): 347–413 1985 ). The study also pointed to a potential problem for longitudinal studies if the bipolar satisfaction scale, formerly used to measure the International Wellbeing Index’s PWI and NWI, is changed to a unipolar one. Findings from this pilot study confirm the potential of the NWI as a tool for measuring national well-being cross-culturally