Hackathons as Stepping Stones in Health Care Innovation: Case Study With Systematic Recommendations - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2020 Mar 24;22(3):e17004.
doi: 10.2196/17004.

Hackathons as Stepping Stones in Health Care Innovation: Case Study With Systematic Recommendations

Affiliations
Case Reports

Hackathons as Stepping Stones in Health Care Innovation: Case Study With Systematic Recommendations

Akira-Sebastian Poncette et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Until recently, developing health technologies was time-consuming and expensive, and often involved patients, doctors, and other health care professionals only as passive recipients of the end product. So far, users have been minimally involved in the ideation and creation stages of digital health technologies. In order to best address users' unmet needs, a transdisciplinary and user-led approach, involving cocreation and direct user feedback, is required. In this context, hackathon events have become increasingly popular in generating enthusiasm for user-centered innovation.

Objective: This case study describes preparatory steps and the performance of a health hackathon directly involving patients and health care professionals at all stages. Feasibility and outcomes were assessed, leading to the development of systematic recommendations for future hackathons as a vehicle for bottom-up innovation in health care.

Methods: A 2-day hackathon was conducted in February 2017 in Berlin, Germany. Data were collected through a field study. Collected field notes were subsequently discussed in 15 informal meetings among the research team. Experiences of conducting two further hackathons in December 2017 and November 2018 were included.

Results: In total, 30 participants took part, with 63% (19/30) of participants between 25 and 34 years of age, 30% (9/30) between 35 and 44 years of age, and 7% (2/30) younger than 25 years of age. A total of 43% (13/30) of the participants were female. The participation rate of medical experts, including patients and health care professionals, was 30% (9/30). Five multidisciplinary teams were formed and each tackled a specific health care problem. All presented projects were apps: a chatbot for skin cancer recognition, an augmented reality exposure-based therapy (eg, for arachnophobia), an app for medical neighborhood connectivity, a doctor appointment platform, and a self-care app for people suffering from depression. Patients and health care professionals initiated all of the projects. Conducting the hackathon resulted in significant growth of the digital health community of Berlin and was followed up by larger hackathons. Systematic recommendations for conducting cost-efficient hackathons (n≤30) were developed, including aspects of community building, stakeholder engagement, mentoring, themes, announcements, follow-up, and timing for each step.

Conclusions: This study shows that hackathons are effective in bringing innovation to health care and are more cost- and time-efficient and potentially more sustainable than traditional medical device and digital product development. Our systematic recommendations can be useful to other individuals and organizations that want to establish user-led innovation in academic hospitals by conducting transdisciplinary hackathons.

Keywords: digital health; hackathon; patient-centered care; social media; technological innovation; transdisciplinary research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hackathon flow, from teaming up to demonstration of the project pitch and working prototype (green arrows). In contrast to our expectations, teams often jumped back and forth between brainstorming, hacking, and preparing the pitch (orange arrows).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total number of members of the Meetup group Hacking Health Berlin from January 2014 to March 2019. The three hackathons are marked with arrows [9].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Systematic recommendation for conducting a cost-efficient hackathon with 30 or fewer participants. The time (T) to action is visualized in orange boxes. The hackathon occurs at T0.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003 Mar;22(2):151–185. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00126-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shah SG, Robinson I, AlShawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Oct;25(4):514–521. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990328. - DOI - PubMed
    1. OpenBSD. [2019-06-04]. Hackathons http://www.openbsd.org/hackathons.html.
    1. Walker A, Ko N. Bringing medicine to the digital age via hackathons and beyond. J Med Syst. 2016 Apr;40(4):98. doi: 10.1007/s10916-016-0461-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bhandari A, Hayward M, Luminary Labs MIT Hacking Medicine. [2017-06-08]. Health hackathon database http://hackingmedicine.mit.edu/health-hackathon-database/

Publication types