Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29092808›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

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

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1,398 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,398citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
110.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04669340 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

E-learning in Patient Education to Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis - An Evaluation of the Effectiveness, the Patient Perspective and the Implementation

TypeinterventionalSponsorAarhus University HospitalRan2021 to 2024Enrolled181ConditionsRheumatoid Arthritis, Patient Involvement, Self EfficacyArmsE-learning patient education, Standard face-to-face patient education
NCT05429619 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Advancing Peer Support Programming to Address PTSD and Trauma Among Canadian Public Safety Personnel and Veterans

TypeobservationalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled950ConditionsMental Health Issue, Mental Stress, Post Traumatic Stress DisorderArmsPeerOnCall
NCT07399106 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

EN-CAMHS 2: Enhancing CAMHS Referrals

TypeobservationalSponsorGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustRan2026 to 2026Enrolled235ConditionsNo Conditions, Improving Referrals Into NHS CAMHSArmsWork Package 1, Work Package 2, Work Package 3, Work Package 4
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,398 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2,470 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

1,338 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-8088
Joseph WhertonDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7701-4783
Chrysanthi PapoutsiDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1189-7100
Jennifer LynchSchool of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2601-7498
Gemma HughesDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-1125
Christine A'CourtDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1829-3860
Susan HinderRAFT Research and Consulting Ltd, Clitheroe, Lancs, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8451-2027
Nick FahyDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4957-0189
Rob ProcterDepartment of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8059-5224
Sara ShawDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7014-4793
University of Oxford · GBRAFT Solutions (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-1213-10003Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany 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.

objectiveOur 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsSubject 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.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansTechnologybusiness planningcomplexity of innovationsdiffusion of innovationimplementationinnovation adoptionNASSS frameworknonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability frameworkprogram sustainabilityscale-up

Identifiers

PMID29092808
PMCPMC5688245
OpenAlexW2765304416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.