Lack of evidence regarding safety and effectiveness at market entry is driving the need to consider adopting a lifecycle approach to evaluating medical devices, but it is unclear what lifecycle evaluation means. This research sought to explore the tacit meanings of “lifecycle” and “lifecycle evaluation” as embodied within evaluation models/frameworks used for medical devices.

Drawing on qualitative evidence synthesis methods and using an inductive approach, novel methods were developed to identify, appraise, analyze, and synthesize lifecycle evaluation models used for medical devices. Data was extracted (including purpose; audience; characterization; outputs; timing; and type of model) from key texts for coding, categorization, and comparison, exploring embodied meaning across four broad perspectives.

Fifty-two models were included in the synthesis. They demonstrated significant heterogeneity of meaning, form, scope, timing, and purpose. The “lifecycle” may represent a single stage, a series of stages, a cycle of innovation, or a system. “Lifecycle evaluation” focuses on the overarching goal of the stakeholder group, and may use a single or repeated evaluation to inform decision-making regarding the adoption of health technologies (Healthcare), resource allocation (Policymaking), investment in new product development or marketing (Trade and Industry), or market regulation (Regulation). The adoption of a lifecycle approach by regulators has resulted in the deferral of evidence generation to the post-market phase.

Using a “lifecycle evaluation” approach to inform reimbursement decision-making must not be allowed to further jeopardize evidence generation and patient safety by accepting inadequate evidence of safety and effectiveness for reimbursement decisions.

The duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) continues to be a global priority. Early intervention services were established to reduce treatment delays but have had limited impact. This systematic review examines barriers and facilitators to seeking access to these services, to identify targets for service level change.

We conducted a systematic review of relevant databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychARTICLES) using pre-defined search terms for psychosis, early intervention, and barriers and facilitators. Given the majority of qualitative studies, a thematic synthesis rather than meta-analysis was indicated.

The search yielded 10 studies. Mental health stigma and discrimination predict DUP, compounded by structural barriers which limit the impact of early intervention services on timely access to recommended treatments. Synthesis of the qualitative studies generated three themes: knowledge, relationships, and stigma. Lack of knowledge, absence of supportive relationships (social and professional), and self-stigma constitute significant barriers to seeking access to early intervention services.

This is the first review of the barriers and facilitators to seeking access to early intervention services. The findings highlight public health and secondary care service targets to expedite access to recommended treatments and thereby reduce the DUP.