ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013
Differentiating innovation priorities among stakeholder in hospital care.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
- EAPC White Paper: What are the priorities for Public Health & Palliative Care research in the coming decade? Results from an International Delphi study.Palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Women's Preferences in Early Pregnancy Loss Management: A Focus on Psychological Considerations Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.The patient · 2026Article
- How do patients with primary hypertension assess different endpoints of their treatment? a survey using analytic hierarchy process.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- A Web-Based Communication Platform to Improve Home Care Services in Norway (DigiHelse): Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- Health technology assessment (HTA) of optoelectronic biosensors for oncology by analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Likert scale.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- When Parallel Roads Meet: Orchestrating Collaborations Between Regulatory, Ethical, and Business Partners in Translational Medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- Virtual Patient Technology: Engaging Primary Care in Quality Improvement Innovations.JMIR medical education · 2017Article
- Use of electronic medical records and quality of patient data: different reaction patterns of doctors and nurses to the hospital organization.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- School staff, parent and student perceptions of a Breakfast in the Classroom model during initial implementation.Public health nutrition · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecisions to adopt a particular innovation may vary between stakeholders because individual stakeholders may disagree on the costs and benefits involved. This may translate to disagreement between stakeholders on priorities in the implementation process, possibly explaining the slow diffusion of innovations in health care. In this study, we explore the differences in stakeholder preferences for innovations, and quantify the difference in stakeholder priorities regarding costs and benefits.
methodsThe decision support technique called the analytic hierarchy process was used to quantify the preferences of stakeholders for nine information technology (IT) innovations in hospital care. The selection of the innovations was based on a literature review and expert judgments. Decision criteria related to the costs and benefits of the innovations were defined. These criteria were improvement in efficiency, health gains, satisfaction with care process, and investments required. Stakeholders judged the importance of the decision criteria and subsequently prioritized the selected IT innovations according to their expectations of how well the innovations would perform for these decision criteria.
resultsThe stakeholder groups (patients, nurses, physicians, managers, health care insurers, and policy makers) had different preference structures for the innovations selected. For instance, self-tests were one of the innovations most preferred by health care insurers and managers, owing to their expected positive impacts on efficiency and health gains. However, physicians, nurses and patients strongly doubted the health gains of self-tests, and accordingly ranked self-tests as the least-preferred innovation.
conclusionsThe various stakeholder groups had different expectations of the value of the nine IT innovations. The differences are likely due to perceived stakeholder benefits of each innovation, and less to the costs to individual stakeholder groups. This study provides a first exploratory quantitative insight into stakeholder positions concerning innovation in health care, and presents a novel way to study differences in stakeholder preferences. The results may be taken into account by decision makers involved in the implementation of innovations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.