Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fleuren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Paulussen, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fleuren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Paulussen, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 16:107-123 (2004)
International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 16 no. 2 © International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved


Examining the Evidence

Determinants of innovation within health care organizations

Literature review and Delphi study

Margot Fleuren, Karin Wiefferink and Theo Paulussen

TNO Prevention and Health, Leiden, The Netherlands

Purpose. 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.

Data sources. 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.

Study selection. 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.

Data extraction. 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).

Results. 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.

Conclusion. 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.

Keywords: Delphi-study, determinants, health care organizations, implementation, innovations, literature review

Address reprint requests to Margot Fleuren, TNO Prevention and Health, P.O. Box 2215, 2301 CE Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: mah.fleuren{at}pg.tno.nl

Accepted for publication December 4, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Journal of Medical QualityHome page
P. Varkey, A. Horne, and K. E. Bennet
Innovation in Health Care: A Primer
American Journal of Medical Quality, September 1, 2008; 23(5): 382 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Fam PractHome page
M. A van Bokhoven, H. Koch, G.-J. Dinant, P. J. Bindels, R. P. Grol, and T. van der Weijden
Exploring the black box of change in improving test-ordering routines
Fam. Pract., June 5, 2008; (2008) cmn022v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Care Res RevHome page
C. B. Rye and J. R. Kimberly
The Adoption of Innovations by Provider Organizations in Health Care
Med Care Res Rev, June 1, 2007; 64(3): 235 - 278.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Informatics JournalHome page
M. S. Svensson
Monitoring practice and alarm technology in anaesthesiology
Health Informatics Journal, March 1, 2007; 13(1): 9 - 21.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
J. de Nooijer and N. K. de Vries
Monitoring health risk behavior of Dutch adolescents and the development of health promoting policies and activities: the E-MOVO project
Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2007; 22(1): 5 - 10.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.