Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jennifer Lynch, Gemma Hughes, Christine A'Court, Susan Hinder, Nick Fahy, Rob Procter, Sara Shaw, Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jennifer Lynch, Gemma Hughes, Christine A'Court, Susan Hinder, Nick Fahy, Rob Procter, Sara Shaw

Abstract

Background: Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level.

Objective: Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program.

Methods: The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs-video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing-using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback.

Results: The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs.

Conclusions: Subject to further empirical testing, NASSS could be applied across a range of technological innovations in health and social care. It has several potential uses: (1) to inform the design of a new technology; (2) to identify technological solutions that (perhaps despite policy or industry enthusiasm) have a limited chance of achieving large-scale, sustained adoption; (3) to plan the implementation, scale-up, or rollout of a technology program; and (4) to explain and learn from program failures.

Keywords: NASSS framework; business planning; complexity of innovations; diffusion of innovation; implementation; innovation adoption; nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability framework; program sustainability; scale-up.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Trisha Greenhalgh, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Jennifer Lynch, Gemma Hughes, Christine A'Court, Susan Hinder, Nick Fahy, Rob Procter, Sara Shaw. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 01.11.2017.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The NASSS framework for considering influences on the adoption, nonadoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies.

References

    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jul;61(2):417–30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001.
    1. Robert G, Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F, Peacock R. Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010 Oct;15(4):243–50. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009137.
    1. Greenhalgh T. Role of routines in collaborative work in healthcare organisations. BMJ. 2008 Nov 17;337:a2448.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 17;8:22. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-22.
    1. Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inform. 2013 May;82(5):e73–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.007.
    1. De Vries H, Bekkers V, Tummers L. Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Adm. 2016;94(1):146–166.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, Khoury MJ, Kaplan RM, Hunter C. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012 Jul;102(7):1274–81. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755.
    1. Garber S, Gates S, Keeler E, Valana M, Mulcahy A, Lau C. Redirecting innovation in U.S. health care: options to decrease spending and increase value. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2014. [2017-10-19]. .
    1. van Limburg M, van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC, Nijland N, Ossebaard HC, Hendrix RMG, Seydel ER. Why business modeling is crucial in the development of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 28;13(4):e124. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1674.
    1. Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
    1. Greenhalgh T, A'Court C, Shaw S. Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth - a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Jun 14;17(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0594-2.
    1. Standing C, Standing S, McDermott M, Gururajan R, Kiani Mavi R. The paradoxes of telehealth: a review of the literature 2000-2015. Syst Res. 2016 Dec 01; doi: 10.1002/sres.2442.
    1. Bentley C, Powell L, Orrell A, Mountain G. Addressing design and suitability barriers to telecare use: has anything changed? Technol Disabil. 2014;26(4):221–35. doi: 10.3233/TAD-150421.
    1. Clark J, McGee-Lennon M. A stakeholder-centred exploration of the current barriers to the uptake of home care technology in the UK. J Assist Technol. 2011;5(1):12–25. doi: 10.5042/jat.2011.0097.
    1. Wade V, Eliott J, Hiller J. Clinician acceptance is the key factor for sustainable telehealth services. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(5):682–694. doi: 10.4973/2314528809.
    1. Zanaboni P, Wootton R. Adoption of routine telemedicine in Norwegian hospitals: progress over 5 years. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):496.
    1. Sligo J, Gauld R, Roberts V, Villa L. A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:86–97.
    1. Gagnon M, Nsangou ER, Payne-Gagnon J, Grenier S, Sicotte C. Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups? perceptions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):a.
    1. Hogan-Murphy D, Tonna A, Strath A, Cunningham S. Healthcare professionals' perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic systems for the prescribing, dispensing and administration of medicines in hospitals: a systematic review. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2015;22(6):358–365. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2015-000722.
    1. Bergs J, Lambrechts F, Simons P, Vlayen A, Marneffe W, Hellings J, Cleemput I, Vandijck D. Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of surgical safety checklists: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Dec;24(12):776–86. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004021.
    1. Atun R, de Jongh T, Secci F, Ohiri K, Adeyi O. Integration of targeted health interventions into health systems: a conceptual framework for analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2010 Mar;25(2):104–11. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czp055.
    1. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun;40(6):637–44. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.023.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Wherton J, Hughes G, Lynch J, A'Court C, Hinder S, Fahy N, Byrne E, Finlayson A, Sorell T, Procter R, Stones R. SCALS: a fourth-generation study of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context. BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 15;6(2):e010208. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010208.
    1. Lupton D. Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Sociol Compass. 2014 Dec 04;8(12):1344–1359. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12226.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009 Jun 15;43(3):535–554. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. Nicolini D. Practice as the site of knowing: insights from the field of telemedicine. Organ Sci. 2011 Jun;22(3):602–620. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0556.
    1. Pols J, Willems D. Innovation and evaluation: taming and unleashing telecare technology. Sociol Health Illn. 2011 Mar;33(3):484–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01293.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01293.x.
    1. Maniatopoulos G, Procter R, Llewellyn S, Harvey G, Boyd A. Moving beyond local practice: reconfiguring the adoption of a breast cancer diagnostic technology. Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;131:98–106. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.036.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Stones R. Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(9):1285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Vijayaraghavan S, Wherton J, Shaw S, Byrne E, Campbell-Richards D, Bhattacharya S, Hanson P, Ramoutar S, Gutteridge C, Hodkinson I, Collard A, Morris J. Virtual online consultations: advantages and limitations (VOCAL) study. BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 29;6(1):e009388. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009388.
    1. Gorst SL, Armitage CJ, Brownsell S, Hawley MS. Home telehealth uptake and continued use among heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med. 2014 Dec;48(3):323–36. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9607-x.
    1. Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Kelly C, Hawley M. Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2014 Jan;70(1):21–33. doi: 10.1111/jan.12196.
    1. Boyne JJJ, Vrijhoef HJM. Implementing telemonitoring in heart failure care: barriers from the perspectives of patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2013 Sep;10(3):254–61. doi: 10.1007/s11897-013-0140-1.
    1. Merrell RC, Doarn CR. Barriers or barricades. Telemed J E Health. 2012 Mar;18(2):79–80. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2012.9997.
    1. Hunting G, Shahid N, Sahakyan Y, Fan I, Moneypenny CR, Stanimirovic A, North T, Petrosyan Y, Krahn MD, Rac VE. A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 09;15:544. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1196-2.
    1. Lluch M, Abadie F. Exploring the role of ICT in the provision of integrated care--evidence from eight countries. Health Policy. 2013 Jun;111(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.03.005.
    1. Gheorghiu B, Ratchford F. Scaling up the use of remote patient monitoring in Canada. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;209:23–6.
    1. Saner H, van der Velde E. eHealth in cardiovascular medicine: a clinical update. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 Oct;23(2 suppl):5–12. doi: 10.1177/2047487316670256.
    1. Dierckx R, Pellicori P, Cleland JGF, Clark AL. Telemonitoring in heart failure: Big Brother watching over you. Heart Fail Rev. 2015 Jan;20(1):107–16. doi: 10.1007/s10741-014-9449-4.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005 Nov 05;331(7524):1064–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68.
    1. van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e111. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1672.
    1. Lynch J. Policy Aspirations and Practice in English Telecare: A Case Study of Story-lines and Invisible Work (PhD thesis) Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham; 2015.
    1. Procter R, Wherton J, Greenhalgh T, Sugarhood P, Rouncefield M, Hinder S. Telecare call centre work and ageing in place. Comput Support Coop Work. 2016 Jan 15;25(1):79–105. doi: 10.1007/s10606-015-9242-5.
    1. Triantafyllidis A, Velardo C, Chantler T, Shah SA, Paton C, Khorshidi R, Tarassenko L, Rahimi K, SUPPORT- H. A personalised mobile-based home monitoring system for heart failure: the SUPPORT-HF Study. Int J Med Inform. 2015 Oct;84(10):743–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.05.003.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Rouncefield M. What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med. 2015;13:91. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0279-6.
    1. O'Connor S, Hanlon P, O'Donnell CA, Garcia S, Glanville J, Mair FS. Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3.
    1. Yusof MM, Kuljis J, Papazafeiropoulou A, Stergioulas LK. An evaluation framework for health information systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit) Int J Med Inform. 2008 Jun;77(6):386–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.011.
    1. Van Der Meijden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A. Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(3):235–43. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1094.
    1. Chang H. Evaluation framework for telemedicine using the logical framework approach and a fishbone diagram. Healthc Inform Res. 2015 Oct;21(4):230–8. doi: 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.230.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360.
    1. Anton MT, Jones DJ. Adoption of technology‐enhanced treatments: conceptual and practical considerations. Clin Psychol (New York) 2017 Sep;24(3):223–240. doi: 10.1111/cpsp.12197.
    1. Madjedi K, Daya R. Towards a framework for the development, implementation and sustainability of eHealth interventions in Indigenous communities. Univ Ottawa J Med. 2016;6(1):27–30.
    1. Mummah SA, Robinson TN, King AC, Gardner CD, Sutton S. IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): a framework and toolkit of strategies for the development of more effective digital interventions to change health behavior. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 16;18(12):e317. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5927.
    1. Agboola S, Hale TM, Masters C, Kvedar J, Jethwani K. “Real-world” practical evaluation strategies: a review of telehealth evaluation. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3(4):e75. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3459.
    1. van Dyk L, Schutte C. The telemedicine service maturity model: a framework for the measurementimprovement of telemedicine services. In: Madhaavn R, Khalid S, editors. Telemedicine. London, UK: Intech; 2013.
    1. Kukafka R, Johnson SB, Linfante A, Allegrante JP. Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. J Biomed Inform. 2003 Jun;36(3):218–27.
    1. van Dyk L. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Jan 23;11(2):1279–98. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110201279.
    1. Abbott PA, Foster J, Marin HDF, Dykes PC. Complexity and the science of implementation in health IT--knowledge gaps and future visions. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jul;83(7):e12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.10.009.
    1. Eng TR, Gustafson DH, Henderson J, Jimison H, Patrick K. Introduction to evaluation of interactive health communication applications. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. Am J Prev Med. 1999 Jan;16(1):10–5.
    1. Hebert M. Telehealth success: evaluation framework development. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 2):1145–9.
    1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2009 Aug;6(8):e1000126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126.
    1. Shaw NT. 'CHEATS': a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework. Comput Biol Med. 2002 May;32(3):209–20.
    1. Kazanjian A, Green CJ. Beyond effectiveness: the evaluation of information systems using a comprehensive health technology assessment framework. Comput Biol Med. 2002 May;32(3):165–77.
    1. Ganesh J. E-health drivers, applications, challenges ahead and Strategies: a conceptual framework. Indian J Med Inform. 2004;1(1):40–48.
    1. Dansky KH, Thompson D, Sanner T. A framework for evaluating eHealth research. Eval Program Plann. 2006 Nov;29(4):397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.009.
    1. Hamid A, Sarmad A. Evaluation of e‐health services: user's perspective criteria. Transform Gov. 2008 Aug;2(4):243–255. doi: 10.1108/17506160810917945.
    1. Esser PE, Goossens RHM. A framework for the design of user-centred teleconsulting systems. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(1):32–9. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2008.080601.
    1. Kushniruk A. Evaluation in the design of health information systems: application of approaches emerging from usability engineering. Comput Biol Med. 2002 May;32(3):141–9.
    1. Kaufman D, Roberts WD, Merrill J, Lai T, Bakken S. Applying an evaluation framework for health information system design, development, and implementation. Nurs Res. 2006;55(2 Suppl):S37–42.
    1. Wouters E, Weijers T, Finch T. Successful implementation of technological innovations in health care organizations. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, editors. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer; 2017. pp. 179–89.
    1. Tait GR, Bates J, LaDonna KA, Schulz VN, Strachan PH, McDougall A, Lingard L. Adaptive practices in heart failure care teams: implications for patient-centered care in the context of complexity. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015;8:365–76. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S85817. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S85817.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Shaw S. The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):001574. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001574.
    1. May CR, Eton DT, Boehmer K, Gallacher K, Hunt K, MacDonald S, Mair FS, May CM, Montori VM, Richardson A, Rogers AE, Shippee N. Rethinking the patient: using burden of treatment theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:281. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-281.
    1. Showell C, Cummings E, Turner P. The invisibility of disadvantage: why do we not notice? Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;235:388–392.
    1. World Health Organization . Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2017. Jan 01, [2017-10-19].
    1. Choi NG, Dinitto DM. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2013 May;15(5):e93. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2645.
    1. Pols J. Care at a Distance: On the Closeness of Technology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press; 2012.
    1. Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 2010.
    1. Lehoux P. The duality of health technology in chronic illness: how designers envision our future. Chronic Illn. 2008 Jun;4(2):85–97. doi: 10.1177/1742395308092475.
    1. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Denis J. Providing value to new health technology: the early contribution of entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Jan 25;6(9):509–518. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.11.
    1. Lehoux P, Miller FA, Daudelin G, Urbach DR. How venture capitalists decide which new medical technologies come to exist. Sci Public Policy. 2015 Aug 27;43(3):375–385. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv051.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Fahy N. The bright elusive butterfly of value in health technology development. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2017;6:1–5. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.65.
    1. Markiewicz K, van Til JA, IJzerman MJ. Medical devices early assessment methods: systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Apr;30(2):137–46. doi: 10.1017/S0266462314000026.
    1. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989 Sep;13(3):319. doi: 10.2307/249008.
    1. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1976.
    1. Williams R, Stewart J, Slack R. Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting With Information and Communication Technologies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2005.
    1. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage. 2003 Jan;40(3):191–204. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
    1. Sharma U, Clarke M. Nurses' and community support workers' experience of telehealth: a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr 10;14:164. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-164.
    1. Taylor J, Coates E, Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Hawley MS. Examining the use of telehealth in community nursing: identifying the factors affecting frontline staff acceptance and telehealth adoption. J Adv Nurs. 2015 Feb;71(2):326–37. doi: 10.1111/jan.12480.
    1. Wade V, Eliott J. The role of the champion in telehealth service development: a qualitative analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Dec;18(8):490–2. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2012.gth115.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D, Stones R. Rethinking resistance to ‘big IT’: a sociological study of why and when healthcare staff do not use nationally mandated information and communication technologies. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014 Nov;39(2):1–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01399.x.
    1. DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res. 1992 Mar;3(1):60–95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60.
    1. Weick K. Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies. In: Goodman PS, Sproull LS, editors. Technology and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. pp. 1–44.
    1. Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev. 2002 Apr 01;27(2):185–203. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995.
    1. Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625–8.
    1. Feldman MS. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organ Sci. 2000 Dec;11(6):611–629. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529.
    1. Ackerman M. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Hum Comput Interact. 2000 Sep 1;15(2):179–203. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_5.
    1. Symon G, Long K, Ellis J. The coordination of work activities: cooperation and conflict in a hospital context. Comput Support Coop Work. 1996 Mar;5(1):1–31. doi: 10.1007/BF00141934.
    1. Cherns A. Principles of sociotechnical design revisted. Hum Relat. 2016 Apr 22;40(3):153–161. doi: 10.1177/001872678704000303.
    1. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform. 1999 Aug;55(2):87–101.
    1. Weick K. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
    1. Orlikowski WJ. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organ Sci. 1992 Aug;3(3):398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398.
    1. Stewart J, Williams R. The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: social learning and the user. In: Rohracher H, editor. User Involvement in Innovation Processes. Strategies and Limitations From a Socio-Technical Perspective. Munich, Germany: Profil-Verlag; 2005.
    1. Doolin B. Implementing e-Health. In: Ferlie E, Montgomery K, Reff Pedersen A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Health Care Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 352–374.
    1. Mair FS, May C, O'Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 May 1;90(5):357–64. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424.
    1. Khoja S, Durrani H, Nayani P, Fahim A. Scope of policy issues in eHealth: results from a structured literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 17;14(1):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1633.
    1. Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. Lancet. 2011 Aug 20;378(9792):731–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61229-4.
    1. Siegal G. Telemedicine: licensing and other legal issues. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2011 Dec;44(6):1375–84, xi. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2011.08.011.
    1. Wismar M, Palm W, Figueras J, Ernst K, van Ginneken E. Cross-Border Health Care in the European Union. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Europe; 2011.
    1. Williams R. Universal solutions or local contingencies? Tensions and contradictions in the mutual shaping of technology work in organisations. In: McLoughlin I, Preace D, Dawson P, editors. Technology, Organizations and Innovation. Volume 3: Critical Empirical Studies. London, UK: Routledge; 2000. pp. 2000–39.
    1. Pollock N, Williams R, Procter R. Fitting standard software packages to non-standard organizations: the ‘biography’ of an enterprise-wide system. Technol Anal Strateg Manage. 2003 Sep;15(3):317–332. doi: 10.1080/09537320310001601504.
    1. Van Norman GA. Drugs and devices. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016 Aug;1(5):399–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.003.
    1. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 02;8:117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
    1. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009 Jun;43(3-4):267–76. doi: 10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9.
    1. Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R. Minding the gaps: creating resilience in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. Volume 3: Performance and Tools. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
    1. Patterson ES, Militello LG, Su G, Sarkar U. Characterizing a naturalistic decision-making phenomenon: loss of system resilience associated with implementation of new technology. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2016 Sep;10(3):229–243. doi: 10.1177/1555343416652524.
    1. Procter R, Rouncefield M, Balka E, Berg M. Special issue: CSCW and dependable healthcare systems. Comput Support Coop Work. 2007 Jan 6;15(5-6):413–418. doi: 10.1007/s10606-006-9037-9.
    1. Jirotka M, Procter R, Hartswood M, Slack R, Simpcson A, Coopmans C, Hinds C, Voss A. Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: the eDiaMoND case study. Comput Support Coop Work. 2005 Sep 14;14(4):369–398. doi: 10.1007/s10606-005-9001-0.
    1. Cho S, Mathiassen L, Robey D. The dialectics of resilience: a multilevel analysis of a telehealth innovation. In: Donnellan B, Larsen TJ, Levine L, DeGross JI, editors. The TDIT 2006: Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology for Organizational Resilience. Cham Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2006. pp. 339–357.
    1. Oudshoorn N. Diagnosis at a distance: the invisible work of patients and healthcare professionals in cardiac telemonitoring technology. Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Mar;30(2):272–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01032.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01032.x.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Macfarlane F, Barton-Sweeney C, Woodard F. “If we build it, will it stay?” A case study of the sustainability of whole-system change in London. Milbank Q. 2012 Sep;90(3):516–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00673.x.
    1. Llewellyn S, Procter R, Harvey G, Maniatopoulos G, Boyd A. Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS: negotiating the organisational and policy context-a qualitative study. 2014. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014 Jul;2:23.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever