Economics & Sociology

1) Background: Projects of health systems research frequently suffer from poor sustainability, i.e., the innovations generated in the project are not adopted as standards. As soon as project funding ends, the interest of researchers declines and the innovations will not make their way in the routine health care system. This failure is partly due to the fact that key partners of the project are very good researchers, but sustainability is not in the core of their interest. Only a few researchers are promoting the adoption of the project innovations in the routine system. 2) Methods: Based on the experience of two major research projects (GANI_MED, InGRiP) we developed a stakeholder-typology of research projects as a conceptional framework. For GANI_MED we distinguish the dimensions “relevance” and “identification”, for InGRiP the dimensions “innovativeness” and “deployment”. 3) Findings: The methodology was applied on two health systems research projects demonstrating its feasibility and applicability. 4) Conclusions: We conclude that the sustainability of research projects requires that this objective is a key concern of all partners from the very beginning. It will not just happen but has to be planned, promoters must be fostered and roles must be clearly defined.

1. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development:" Our Common Future.". United Nations.

2. Buck, L. E., Lassoie, J. P., & Fernandes, E. C. (1998). Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. CRC Press.

3. Fleßa, S. (2002). Gesundheitsreformen in Entwicklungsländern. Frankfurt a. M., Lembeck.

4. Fleßa, S. (2018). Systemisches Krankenhausmanagement. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

5. Fleßa, S., John, M., & Mahnke, J. (2011). Zwischen Vertrauen und Kontrolle. Management interdisziplinärer Forschungsverbünde–eine exemplarische Analyse. Wissenschaftsmanagement, 17, 38-43.

6. Fleßa, S., Thum, C., Raths, S., Fischer, T., Erdmann, P., & Langanke, M. (2016). Systems Medicine: hype or revolution?. Personalized medicine, 13(5), 441-453.

7. Haseltine, W. A. (2013). Affordable excellence: the Singapore healthcare story: how to create and manage sustainable healthcare systems. Brookings Institution Press.

8. Imison, C., Naylor, C., Buck, D., Curry, N., Addicott, R., & Zollinger-Read, P. (2011). Transforming our healthcare system. London: The King's Fund.

9. Jonas, H. (1984). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Insel-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. English translation: The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, Chicago: Chicag

10. Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability?. Sustainability, 2(11), 3436-3448.

11. Schleidgen, S., & Marckmann, G. (2013). Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? Ethische Implikationen der Individualisierten Medizin. Ethik in der Medizin, 25(3), 223-231.

12. Schleidgen, S., Klingler, C., Bertram, T., Rogowski, W. H., & Marckmann, G. (2013). What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC medical ethics, 14(1), 55.

13. Thurston, H. D. (1997). Slash/mulch systems: sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Slash/mulch systems: sustainable agriculture in the tropics.

14. Turner, J. R. (2014). Handbook of project-based management. McGraw-hill New York, NY.