Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) can help health technology assessment agencies anticipate decision-makers’ informational needs regarding four systemic challenges: 1) equitable access; 2) workforce issues; 3) accountable policy trade-offs; and 4) environmental sustainability. This article clarifies how key RIH elements can enrich evaluation processes, align strategic priorities with health system challenges, and inform the production of deliverables that are broader in scope than a single technology review.

Lehoux, P., Ganache, I., Demers-Payette, O., Silva, H.P, Plamondon, G., de Guise, M. (2025). HTA responsiveness to today’s challenges to health systems: A responsible innovation in health perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2025;41(1):e16.

This article sheds light on stakeholders’ perspectives on the intellectual property (IP) and value sharing of AI technologies developed through public-private partnership (PPP) in the health care sector. It indicates factors influencing their success or failure. For PPPs to be successful, updated policies clarifying public healthcare systems’ strategic use of AI are required as well as clear value-sharing frameworks.

Alami, H., Rivard, L., Lehoux, P., Ag Ahmed, M.A., Soubra, R., Rouquet, R., Fortin, J-P, Fleet, R. (2025). Conflicts and complexities around intellectual property and value sharing of artificial intelligence healthcare solutions in public-private partnerships: A qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine – Health Systems.

(in press)

Pozelli Sabio, R., Lehoux, P. (2026). Fostering responsibility in the institutional logics of food systems: Results from a multiple case study in the province of Québec and the state of São Paulo. Journal of Rural Studies.

This case study draws on documentary, observational, and interview data to compare digitalization efforts over 3 decades in four academic health centres in Quebec (Canada). The different experiences of these organizations underline the importance of adapting national strategies and providing support to implementers, building on acquired strengths, and arriving at the right balance of guidance from the top and autonomy to develop innovative capacities.

Motulsky, A., Usher, S., Gauvin, L., Hébert, P., Regis, C., Lehoux, P., Ray, T., Baker, R., Denis, JL. (2025). Policy context and digital development: a comparative study of trajectories in four Canadian academic health centres over 30 years. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 32(8):1286–1298.

Little is known about the way Social Finance (SF) experts conceptualise and align the resources they provide to impact-driven ventures (IDVs). This paper investigates 1) the tools SF experts apply to guide business model development of their investees and 2) the activities they perceive as value-adding or value-subtracting. Findings suggest that different strategies for business model advice are adopted, reflecting a spectrum of investor involvement levels, and that a wide range of activities have the potential to either add significant value to IDVs or detract them from their goals.

Silva, H. P., Lehoux, P., Pozelli Sabio, R. (2024). The multifaceted role of social finance in supporting social entrepreneurship: A qualitative inquiry into business tools and value-adding and subtracting activities. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.

Applying the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this study describes the enablers and constraints to the development, procurement and/or utilisation of responsible Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) in health organisations. It highlights organisational and systemic factors related to: 1) the presence of an organisational culture that promotes RIH in its innovation-related practices and processes; 2) the availability of material and financial resources as well as expertise in certain fields (eg, environmental sustainability); 3) the evolution of health technology assessment (HTA) practices to include other dimensions beyond effectiveness, safety, and costs; 4) the scope of the regulatory and legal frameworks that govern the approval and use of DHTs; and 5) the role of the market (eg, venture capital) in the design of federal and provincial innovation policies.

Alami, H., Lehoux, P., Shaw, S. E., Niang, M., Malas, K., Fortin, J.-P. (2024). To what extent can digital health technologies comply with the principles of responsible innovation? Practice- and policy-oriented research insights regarding an organisational and systemic issue. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 13, 8061,

Despite their promises, the integration of Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. This study applies the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework to generate a better understanding of the systemic challenges observed in a leading Canadian academic hospital. It adds to current knowledge and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.

Alami, H., Lehoux, P., Papoutsi, C., Shaw, S., Fleet, R., Fortin, J.-P. (2024). Understanding the integration of artificial intelligence in health systems through the NASSS framework: A qualitative study in a leading Canadian academic centre. BMC Health Services Research. 24, 701

This article: 1) explores stakeholders’ perspectives on integrating the environmental impacts of Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) in assessment and procurement practices; 2) identifies the factors enabling or constraining the operationalisation of such a change; and 3) encourages a constructive dialogue on how environmental issues fit within healthcare systems’ push for more DHTs. Considering the micro-, meso-, and macro-systemic factors involved, a better understanding of the complexity inherent in the environmental shift in healthcare is needed.

Alami, H., Rivard, L., Lehoux, P., Ag Ahmed, M.A., Fortin, J-P, Fleet, R. (2023). Integrating environmental considerations in digital health technology assessment and procurement: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Digital Health. 9.

This critical review of the scientific literature on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in food systems (published between 2017 and 2023) summarises why, what and how responsibility is integrated in food systems. There is a need to develop more collaborative and reflexive work to unlock RRI’s potential to inform policy and practice that can foster more responsive and inclusive food systems capable of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Pozelli Sabio, R., Lehoux, P. (2024). Responsible research and innovation in food systems: a critical review of the literature and future research avenues. Agriculture and Human Values.