ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of the Complexities of Scaling Up eHealth Innovation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Process evaluation of an integrated personalized eHealth programme after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-Results of the multicenter ACTIVE randomized controlled trial.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovative eHealth technologies are becoming increasingly common worldwide, with researchers and policy makers advocating their scale-up within and across health care systems. However, examples of successful scale-up remain extremely rare. Although this issue is widely acknowledged, there is still only a limited understanding of why scaling up eHealth technologies is so challenging. This article aims to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities innovators encounter when attempting to scale up eHealth technologies and their strategies for addressing these complexities. We draw on different theoretical perspectives as well as the findings of an interview-based case study of a prominent remote patient monitoring (RPM) innovation in the Netherlands. Specifically, we create a cross-disciplinary theoretical framework bringing together 3 perspectives on scale-up: a structural perspective (focusing on structural barriers and facilitators), an ecological perspective (focusing on local complexities), and a critical perspective (focusing on mutual adaptation between innovation and setting). We then mobilize these perspectives to analyze how various stakeholders (n=14) experienced efforts to scale up RPM technology. We provide 2 key insights: (1) the complexities and strategies associated with local eHealth scale-up are disconnected from those that actors encounter at a broader level scale-up, and this translates into a simultaneous need for stability and malleability, which catches stakeholders in an impasse, and (2) pre-existing circumstances and associated path dependencies shape the complexities of the local context and facilitate or constrain opportunities for the scale-up of eHealth innovation. The 3 theoretical perspectives used in this article, with their diverging assumptions about innovation scale-up, should be viewed as complementary and highlight different aspects of the complexities perceived as playing an important role. Using these perspectives, we conclude that the level at which scale-up is envisaged and the pre-existing local circumstances (2 factors whose importance is often neglected) contribute to an impasse in the scale-up of eHealth innovation at the broader level of scale.
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.