Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702004›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2024

Perspectives on managing innovation readiness in long-term care: a Q-methodology study.

Monique W van den Hoed, Ramon Daniëls, Audrey Beaulen, Jan P H Hamers, Job van Exel, Ramona Backhaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Monique W van den HoedDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, 6229 GT, The Netherlands. m.vandenhoed@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Ramon DaniëlsDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, 6229 GT, The Netherlands.
Audrey BeaulenDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, 6229 GT, The Netherlands.
Jan P H HamersDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, 6229 GT, The Netherlands.
Job van ExelErasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, the Netherlands.
Ramona BackhausDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, Maastricht, 6229 GT, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scarcity of resources in long-term care demands more than ever that organizations in this sector are prepared for innovation to ensure affordable access to care for older adults. Organizations that are innovation ready are more capable of implementing innovations. Therefore, a better understanding of how stakeholders view innovation readiness in long-term care can provide actionable strategies to enhance their innovative capacities. 'Innovation readiness' indicates the level of maturity of an organization to succeed in any type of innovation. Our study explored perspectives among stakeholders on what they consider important for organizations in long-term care for older adults to be innovation ready.

methodsQ-methodology, a mixed-methods approach, was used to investigate the perspectives of 30 stakeholders connected to long-term care for older adults in the Netherlands: academics, (top)management, innovation managers, client representatives, staff, and consultants. Stakeholders were asked to rank 36 statements on innovation readiness on importance. Statements were extracted from literature research and qualitative interviews. Thereafter in the post-interviews stakeholders explained their ranking and reflected on the statements. By-person factor analysis was used to identify clusters in the ranking data. Together with the qualitative data from follow-up interviews, these clusters were interpreted and described as perspectives of the stakeholders.

resultsFour distinct perspectives were identified on what they consider important for innovation readiness in long-term care: (1) 'supportive role of management' (2) 'participation of the client (system) and employees' (3) 'setting the course and creating conditions' and (4) 'structuring decision-making, roles and responsibilities'. The 36 statements represented a complete overview of innovation readiness factors. No additional innovation factors to those previously identified in the literature emerged from the interviews.

conclusionsStakeholders agree that all factors contributing to innovation readiness of long-term care organizations for older adults are accounted for. The variety of perspectives on what is most important shows there is no agreement among stakeholders about a fixed route toward innovation readiness. However, stakeholders suggested a temporal order of the innovation readiness factors, preferably starting with formulating the innovation ambition. This study's results could contribute to developing an assessment tool to deliver a structured approach for managers to assess the innovation readiness of their organization. REGISTRATION: The study received ethical approval on April 13, 2022 from the Medical Ethics Board of Zuyderland Medical Center in the Netherlands with the number METCZ20220036.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareOrganizational InnovationAgedDiffusion of InnovationFemaleHumansInventionsMaleNetherlandsQualitative ResearchInnovation readinessLong-term careManagement.OrganizationsQ-methodology

Identifiers

PMID39702004
PMCPMC11658053

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.