By Michael Gwarisa

Two weeks ago, Cimas Health Group hosted the third edition of its Healthathon, bringing together innovators, students, health professionals and technology enthusiasts to showcase solutions to some of Zimbabwe’s healthcare challenges.

Beyond the pitches, prototypes and competition for the top prize, Healthathon 3.0 offered something perhaps more important: a window into how Zimbabwe’s health innovation ecosystem is evolving.

The most striking observation was the growth of the Healthathon itself.

From just six submissions in its maiden year, the competition has grown to more than 300 submissions this year. That is not merely an impressive statistic for the organisers. It is evidence that health innovation is increasingly attracting attention from people who see healthcare challenges as problems that can be solved through technology, research and creativity.

Part of this growth can be attributed to the visibility the Healthathon has received through the media.

Interestingly, almost every finalist I spoke to, including those who made the Top 10, could trace their participation back to seeing the Healthathon covered in the media.

That should remind health organisations, innovators and programme managers of something that is sometimes underestimated: media is not simply a channel for reporting what happened. It is a powerful tool for mobilising participation and shaping who hears about an opportunity in the first place.

The Healthathon’s growth is therefore also a reminder of the important role the media can play in strengthening Zimbabwe’s health innovation ecosystem.

Originality still matters

If there was another lesson from this year’s competition, it was that originality remains one of the most important ingredients in innovation.

Some ideas were presented more convincingly than others. A polished presentation can certainly capture attention, but presentation alone cannot compensate for a solution that brings little that is new to the table.

There were submissions that appeared to borrow heavily from existing innovations, with some solutions resembling technologies or concepts that are already available elsewhere.

That raises an important question for future participants: Are you simply adapting an existing idea, or are you solving the problem differently?

Innovation does not necessarily mean inventing something that has never existed anywhere in the world. It can mean adapting an existing technology to Zimbabwe’s realities, making it cheaper, more accessible, easier to use or better suited to a particular population.

But there must still be a clear reason why the proposed solution is different and why it is needed.

At Healthathon 3.0, the most compelling ideas were those that demonstrated an understanding of the problem and offered a distinct approach to solving it.

From apps to hardware

The quality and diversity of submissions also appear to have improved significantly over the years.

In previous editions, many participants focused predominantly on applications and software-based solutions. While these remain important, this year’s competition demonstrated a broader appetite for physical products and hardware.

There were prototypes on display, including one developed by Viva, demonstrating that Zimbabwe’s health innovators are beginning to move beyond the idea stage and towards tangible products that can potentially be tested and refined in real-world settings.

That is an important development. A prototype forces an innovator to confront questions that a presentation or concept note may not answer. Does it actually work? Can a health worker use it? Can it be manufactured locally? What will it cost? Can it survive the conditions in which it is expected to operate? Can it eventually be scaled?

These are the questions that move an idea from innovation theatre towards a potentially useful healthcare solution.

Research before innovation

Perhaps the biggest lesson from the winning innovation was the importance of research.

The winners, Silica GURD, did not simply stumble upon a clever idea. Their innovation was grounded in an understanding of the silicosis problem and its impact on Zimbabwe. Before creating their solution, the team researched the subject extensively.

That matters.

An innovator who understands the history, scale and nature of a health problem is better positioned to develop a meaningful intervention than one who begins with technology and then looks for a problem to solve. This is particularly important in healthcare, where innovation must respond to real clinical and public health needs.

Silicosis, for example, is not a new issue in Zimbabwe. It has received considerable media attention, including coverage by HealthTimes. In May, HealthTimes reported on the continuing burden of silicosis and highlighted the fact that, on average, a person dies from the occupational disease every month.

That body of public information is valuable to innovators.

It means the problem is documented. Its consequences are known. The need for intervention is established.

The lesson for future Healthathon participants is therefore simple: research first, innovate second.

Read widely. Understand the problem. Speak to patients and health workers. Study existing interventions. Identify what is missing.

Only then should the technology begin.

Women and young innovators are finding their space

Another encouraging feature of Healthathon 3.0 was the diversity of participants.

There appeared to be greater participation by women, while age was clearly not a barrier to innovation.

Among the participants were young girls from Peterhouse, who formed the group Girls That Code and presented an innovation that made it into the Top 6.

That was perhaps one of the most exciting moments of the competition.

Seeing schoolgirls standing alongside adult innovators and established professionals demonstrated that the future of health innovation does not belong exclusively to doctors, engineers or technology companies.

It can begin in a classroom.

At the other end of the spectrum, there were participants approaching retirement age, showing that innovation is not necessarily a preserve of youth either.

The diversity of ages represented an important message: there is no age limit on solving healthcare problems.

What matters is the ability to identify a problem, understand it and develop a credible solution.

The next Healthathon should go further

If Healthathon 3.0 is anything to go by, Zimbabwe has a growing pool of people willing to experiment with new approaches to healthcare. The next challenge is ensuring that the best ideas do not end when the competition ends. Winning a Healthathon should ideally be the beginning of an innovation journey, not its conclusion.

The strongest solutions need mentorship, clinical validation, access to users, regulatory guidance, funding and opportunities to pilot their products in real healthcare settings.

There is also an opportunity for greater collaboration between innovators and the health sector.

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, researchers and patients should have a stronger voice in helping innovators identify the problems that actually require solving. At the same time, innovators need opportunities to test their ideas within the health system.

Healthathon 3.0 showed that the appetite for innovation exists.

The growth from six submissions in the first edition to more than 300 this year is proof of that.

The increasing quality of submissions, the emergence of hardware prototypes, stronger participation by women and young people, and the emphasis on research all point to an ecosystem that is becoming more mature.

But the real measure of success will ultimately not be the number of submissions or the quality of the pitches.

It will be whether some of these ideas move beyond the competition stage and become solutions that improve the lives of Zimbabwean patients. That is where the next chapter of the Healthathon story should be written.