Determinants of Innovation within Health Care Organizations; Literature Review and Delphi Study

TNO Prevention and Health, Leiden, The Netherlands.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.76). 05/2004; 16(2):107-23. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzh030
Source: PubMed


When introducing innovations to health care, it is important to gain insight into determinants that may facilitate or impede the introduction, in order to design an appropriate strategy for introducing the innovation. To obtain an overview of determinants of innovations in health care organizations, we carried out a literature review and a Delphi study. The Delphi study was intended to achieve consensus among a group of implementation experts on determinants identified from the literature review.
We searched 11 databases for articles published between 1990 and 2000. The keywords varied according to the specific database. We also searched for free text. Forty-four implementation experts (implementation researchers, programme managers, and implementation consultants/advisors) participated in the Delphi study.
The following studies were selected: (i) studies describing innovation processes, and determinants thereof, in health care organizations; (ii) studies where the aim of the innovations was to change the behaviour of health professionals; (iii) studies where the health care organizations provided direct patient care; and (iv) studies where only empirical studies were included.
Two researchers independently selected the abstracts and analysed the articles. The determinants were divided into four categories: characteristics of the environment, characteristics of the organization, characteristics of the user (health professional), and characteristics of the innovation. When analysing the determinants, a distinction was made between systematically designed and non-systematically designed studies. In a systematic study, a determinant analysis was performed and the innovation strategy was adapted to these determinants. Furthermore, the determinants were associated with the degree of implementation, and both users and non-users of the innovation were asked about possible determinants. In the Delphi study, consensus was defined as agreement among 75% of the experts on both the influence of a determinant and the direction towards which that influence tended (i.e. facilitating, impeding, or neutral).
From the initial 2239 abstracts, 57 studies were retrieved and 49 determinants were identified that affected (impeded or facilitated) the innovation process. The experts identified one other determinant. Seventeen studies had a more-or-less systematic design; the others did not. After three rounds, consensus was reached on the influence of 49 out of 50 determinants.
The results of the literature review matched those found in the Delphi study, and 50 potentially relevant determinants of innovation processes were identified. Many of the innovation studies had several methodological flaws, such as not adjusting innovation strategies to relevant determinants of the innovation process, or that data on determinants were gathered only from non-users. Furthermore, the degree of implementation was evaluated in several ways, which made comparison difficult.

Download full-text


Available from: Carin H Wiefferink
    • "Sackman, 1975), Delphi reviews have been used in a variety of health-care settings (e.g. Fleuren et al, 2004; Elwyn et al, 2006; McKenna, 1994) including audiology (Hill et al, 2012; Vogel et al, 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess consensus amongst stakeholders in adult auditory rehabilitation on what processes might support self-management. A three-round Delphi review was conducted online. Participants responded to five questions relating to living well with a hearing loss and the clinical processes that might support living well. Responses were analysed using thematic analysis. In further rounds, statements arising from the analysis were scored using a nine-point Likert scale, independently and then in the light of the collated panel responses. Statements reaching pre-defined criteria for consensus were identified. A panel of 26 stakeholders in adult auditory rehabilitation were consulted, including people with hearing loss and researchers and professionals who design and implement process change. There was consensus on clinical skills and behaviours that might help individuals live well, including processes that inform and involve the individual with the hearing loss (e.g. providing information about hearing and collaborative goal setting, respectively). The panel identified potential emotional, cognitive, and behavioural markers for living well with a hearing loss. The results of this review provide a rationale for the development and evaluation of interventions that include collaborative clinical behaviours as part of self-management support.
    No preview · Article · May 2015 · International journal of audiology
  • Source
    • "The adoption and implementation of new methods of prevention and health promotion in the health care system is a complex process. According to Fleuren et al. (2004), determinants that may impede (or facilitate) an innovation within a health care organization can be categorized into: characteristics of the socio-political context, characteristics of the organization, characteristics of the adopting person, characteristics of the innovation and characteristics of the innovation strategy. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: STUDY QUESTION How is the reproductive life plan (RLP) adopted in midwifery contraceptive counselling? SUMMARY ANSWER A majority of midwives adopted the RLP in their counselling, had predominantly positive experiences and considered it a feasible tool for promoting reproductive health. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The RLP is a health-promoting tool recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA for improving preconception health. It was recently used in a clinical setting in Sweden and was found to increase women's knowledge about fertility and to influence women's wishes to have their last child earlier in life. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An exploratory mixed methods study among 68 midwives who provided contraceptive counselling in primary health care to at least 20 women each during the study period. Midwives received an introduction and materials for using the RLP in contraceptive counselling. Three months later, in the spring of 2014, they were invited to complete a questionnaire and participate in a focus group interview about their adoption of the RLP. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Data collection was through a questionnaire (n = 53 out of 68; participation rate 78%) and five focus group interviews (n = 22). Participants included both younger and older midwives with longer and shorter experiences of contraceptive counselling in public and private health care in one Swedish county. Quantitative data were analysed for differences between users and non-users, and qualitative data were analysed by qualitative content analysis to explore the midwives experiences and opinions of using the RLP. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Sixty-eight per cent of midwives had used the RLP in their contraceptive counselling. Four categories emerged through the focus group interviews: (i) A predominantly positive experience; (ii) The RLP—a health-promoting tool; (iii) individual and societal factors influence the RLP counselling; and (4) long-term implementation comprises opportunities, risks and needs. The most common reason for not using the RLP was lack of information. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION There was general lack of experience of using the RLP with women from different cultural backgrounds, with non-Swedish speaking women and, when a partner was present. Due to the non-random sample, the limited knowledge about non-responders and a short follow-up period, results apply to short-term implementations and might not fully apply to long-term implementation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The use of RLP in contraceptive counselling appears a feasible way of promoting reproductive health. Results from the USA and Sweden indicate it is a promising tool for midwives and other health professionals involved in reproductive counselling, which deserves to be explored in other nations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Grants were received from the Medical Faculty at Uppsala University and the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · Human Reproduction
    • "In a second step, we performed open coding independently of one another , and stayed semantically close to the participants' wording. During this inductive coding process, the four determinants of innovation within health care organizations (at the level of innovation itself, patient , professional, and organization) defined by Fleuren [29] and Grol [30] served as 'sensitizing concepts'. We analyzed the influencing factors for the choice of RRS with delayed RRO instead of RRSO, and subsequently we explored these factors for study participation on this concept. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify influencing factors of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and their professionals for risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) with delayed oophorectomy (RRO) as a substitute for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and for study participation on this concept. A qualitative study was performed by four focus group interviews with 39 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and semi-structured in-depth interviews with 23 professionals in the field of hereditary cancer. We used a theoretical framework of determinants of innovation within healthcare organizations to classify influencing factors (barriers and facilitators). Among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, main barriers for RRS with delayed RRO were seriousness of ovarian cancer, family history, and previous breast cancer. Among professionals, delay of risk-reducing effect of oophorectomy on breast cancer risk and a second operation were recognized as main barriers. Both BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and professionals found uncertainty about the effect of RRS with delayed RRO and ease of the decision to undergo RRSO important barriers. The main facilitator mentioned by both was longer maintenance of ovarian function thereby delaying negative effects of early surgical menopause. For study participation, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers mentioned a randomized study design as the main barrier, whereas professionals identified two facilitators, namely willingness of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers for study participation and uniform counseling. Furthermore, most BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and professionals were willing to consider participation in a future non-randomized study. We identified several barriers and facilitators for RRS with delayed RRO, and for study participation which can be addressed to optimize the design and implementation of a non-randomized study. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Gynecologic Oncology
Show more