Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228702›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

Lisa Rogers, Aoife De Brún, Sarah A Birken, Carmel Davies, Eilish McAuliffe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Navigating inhabited institutionalism: A framework for electrocardiogram workshops in teaching hospitals.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lisa RogersUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), University College Dublin School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Ireland. lisa.rogers@ucdconnect.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-2082
Aoife De BrúnUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), University College Dublin School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Ireland.
Sarah A BirkenDepartment of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, Noth Carolina, USA.
Carmel DaviesUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), University College Dublin School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Ireland.
Eilish McAuliffeUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), University College Dublin School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IEWake Forest University · US

Funding

Irish Health Research Board RL-2015-1588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare organisations are complex social entities, comprising of multiple stakeholders with differing priorities, roles, and expectations about how care should be delivered. To reach agreement among these diverse interest groups and achieve safe, cost-effective patient care, healthcare staff must navigate the micropolitical context of the health service. Micropolitics in this study refers to the use of power, authority, and influence to affect team goals, vision, and decision-making processes. Although these concepts are influential when cultivating change, there is a dearth of literature examining the mechanisms through which micropolitics influences implementation processes among teams. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the role of power, authority, and influence when implementing a collective leadership intervention in two multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

methodsThe multiple case study design adopted employed a triangulation of qualitative research methods. Over thirty hours of observations (Case A = 16, Case B = 15) and twenty-five interviews (Case A = 13, Case B = 12) were completed. An in-depth thematic analysis of the data using an inductive coding approach was completed to understand the mechanisms through which contextual factors influenced implementation success. A context coding framework was also employed throughout implementation to succinctly collate the data into a visual display and to provide a high-level overview of implementation effect (i.e. the positive, neutral, or negative impact of contextual determinants on implementation).

resultsThe findings emphasised that implementing change in healthcare teams is an inherently political process influenced by prevailing power structures. Two key themes were generated which revealed the dynamic role of these concepts throughout implementation: 1) Exerting hierarchical influence for implementation; and 2) Traditional power structures constraining implementation. Gaining support across multiple levels of leadership was influential to implementation success as the influence exercised by these individuals persuaded follower engagement. However, the historical dynamics of each team determined how this influence was exerted and perceived, which negatively impacted some participants' experiences of the implementation process.

conclusionTo date, micropolitics has received scant attention in implementation science literature. This study introduces the micropolitical concepts of power, authority and influence as essential contextual determinants and outlines the mechanisms through which these concepts influence implementation processes.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesPatient Care TeamHumansImplementation ScienceLeadershipQualitative ResearchAuthorityContextHealthcareInfluence implementation scienceMicropoliticsPowerTeams

Identifiers

PMID33228702
PMCPMC7684932
OpenAlexW3109916633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.