NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Llewellyn S, Procter R, Harvey G, et al. Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS: negotiating the organisational and policy context – a qualitative study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Jul. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.23.)

Cover of Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS: negotiating the organisational and policy context – a qualitative study

Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS: negotiating the organisational and policy context – a qualitative study.

Show details

References

1.
Department of Health. Innovation, Health and Wealth: Accelerating Adoption and Diffusion in the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2011.
2.
Wanless D. Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-term View. London: HM Treasury; 2002. p. 39.
3.
Suggs LS. A 10-year retrospective of research in new technologies for health communication. J Health Commun 2006;11:61–74. 10.1080/10810730500461083. [PubMed: 16546919] [CrossRef]
4.
Kennedy CM, Powell J, Payne TH, Ainsworth J, Boyd A, Buchan I. Active assistance technology for health-related behavior change: an interdisciplinary review. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e80. [PMC free article: PMC3415065] [PubMed: 22698679]
5.
Fogg BJ. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do? San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2003.
6.
Khunti K. Near-patient testing in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60:157. 10.3399/bjgp10X483454. [PMC free article: PMC2828826] [PubMed: 20202359] [CrossRef]
7.
Thacker SB, Stroup DF. Revisiting the use of the electronic fetal monitor. Lancet 2003;361:445–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12465-8. [PubMed: 12583938] [CrossRef]
8.
Pammolli F, Riccaboni M, Oglialoro C, Magazzini L, Baio G, Salerno N. Medical Devices Competitiveness and Impact on Public Health Expenditure. Lucca: IMT Institute For Advanced Studies; 2005.
9.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. [PubMed: 11549951]
10.
Healthcare Industries Task Force. Better Healthcare Through Partnership: A Programme for Action. London: Department of Health; 2004.
11.
Greener I, Powell M. The changing governance of the NHS: reform in a post-Keynesian health service. Hum Relat 2008;61:617–36. 10.1177/0018726708091764. [CrossRef]
12.
Department of Health. A Simple Guide to Payment by Results. Leeds: Department of Health; 2012.
13.
Robertson R, Jochelson K. Interventions that Change Clinician Behaviour: Mapping the Literature. London: The King’s Fund; 2006.
14.
Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J. An Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. In Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J, editors. Assessment of Health Care Technologies: Case Studies, Key Concepts and Strategic Issues. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. pp. 3–16.
15.
Global Harmonization Task Force Study Group 1. Information Document Concerning the Definition of the Term ‘Medical Device’. The Global Harmonization Task Force; 2005.
16.
Schreyögg J, Bäumler M, Busse R. Balancing adoption and affordability of medical devices in Europe. Health Policy 2009;92:218–24. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.03.016. [PubMed: 19410326] [CrossRef]
17.
World Health Organization. Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch: An Outcome of the Priority Medical Devices Project. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
18.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures; 2011. URL: www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ip/index.jsp (accessed 23 November 2012).
19.
Lourenco T, Grant AM, Burr JM, Vale L. A framework for the evaluation of new interventional procedures. Health Policy 2012;104:234–40. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.11.012. [PubMed: 22192887] [CrossRef]
20.
York Health Economics Consortium. Organisational and Behavioural Barriers to Medical Technology Adoption. Coventry: York Health Economics Consortium; 2009.
21.
Hansson SO. Philosophy of medical technology. In Hansson SO, Anthonie M, editors. Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2009. pp. 1275–300.
22.
Webster A. Introduction: new technologies in health care: opening the black bag. In Webster A, editor. New Technologies in Health Care: Challenge, Change and Innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. pp. 1–8.
23.
Finch T, May C, Mort M, Mair F. Telemedicine, telecare and the future patient: innovation, risk and governance. In Webster A, editor. New Technologies in Health Care: Challenge, Change and Innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. pp. 84–96.
24.
Hendy J, Barlow J, Chrysanthaki T. Implementing remote care in the UK: an update of progress. Eurohealth 2011;17:21.
25.
Frambach RT, Schillewaert N. Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J Business Res 2002;55:163–76. 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00152-1. [CrossRef]
26.
Williams I, Dickinson H. Knowledge for Adoption: A Review of the Literature on Knowledge-Based Facilitators of Technology Adoption in Health Care. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre/NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement; 2008.
27.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edn. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 1995.
28.
Storey J, Fortune J, Johnson M, Savory C. The adoption and rejection patterns of practitioner-developed technologies: a review, a model and a research agenda. Int J Innovation Manag 2011;15:1043–67. 10.1142/S1363919611003556. [CrossRef]
29.
Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad Manag Rev 2006;31:833–63. 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456. [CrossRef]
30.
Straub ET. Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Rev Educ Res 2009;79:625–49. 10.3102/0034654308325896. [CrossRef]
31.
Department for Business, Indian Administration Service. Strength and Opportunity 2011: The Landscape of the Medical Technology, Medical Biotechnology, Industrial Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Sectors in the UK. London: HM Government; 2011.
32.
Department of Health. High Cost Devices; 2012. URL: www​.dh.gov.uk/health​/2012/03/high-cost-devices/ (accessed 28 November 2012).
33.
Pate R. What is Payment by Results? London: Hayward Medical Communications; 2009.
34.
NHS Improvement Programme. Further Resources: Payments by Results (PbR); 2008. URL: www​.improvement.nhs.uk​/heart/sustainability​/further_resources/pbr.html (accessed 7 January 2013).
35.
Department of Health. Payment by Results Guidance for 2012–13. Leeds: Department of Health; 2012.
36.
NHS Prescription Services. Drug Tariff; NHS Business Services Authority; 2012. URL: www​.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/PrescriptionServices​/924.aspx (accessed 28 November 2012).
37.
Department of Health. National Innovation Procurement Plan. London: Department of Health; 2009.
38.
Department of Health. NHS Procurement: Raising Our Game. London: Department of Health; 2012.
39.
Department of Health. World Class Procurement for the NHS: Call for Evidence and Ideas. London: Department of Health; 2012.
40.
Department of Health. Academic Health Science Networks: Expressions of Interest. London: Department of Health; 2012.
41.
Kmietowicz Z. England gets five academic health science centres to compete on global stage. BMJ 2009;338:b10005.
42.
National Institute for Health Research. NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs); 2012. URL: www​.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure​/Pages/CLAHRCs.aspx (accessed 29 November 2012).
43.
Department of Health. Breakthrough to Real Change in Local Healthcare: A Guide for Applications to Create Health Innovation and Education Clusters (HIECs). London: Department of Health; 2009.
44.
Lourenco T, Grant A, Burr J, Vale L. Local decision-makers views’ of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010;15(Suppl. 2):3–11. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090. [PubMed: 20147422] [CrossRef]
45.
Ong N, Redmayne G, Sarmah R. The Development of a Tool for Assessing the Optimal Adoption of Healthcare Technologies in the NHS. Brighton: Health and Care Infrastructure Research and Innovation Centre; 2009. pp. 7–23.
46.
Hlatky MA, Lee KL, Harrell FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Mark DB, et al. Tying clinical research to patient care by use of an observational database. Stat Med 1984;3:375–84. 10.1002/sim.4780030415. [PubMed: 6396793] [CrossRef]
47.
Tarricone R, Drummond M. Challenges in the clinical and economic evaluation of medical devices: the case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Med Market 2011;11:221–9. 10.1177/1745790411412242. [CrossRef]
48.
Madden M. Alienating evidence based medicine vs. innovative medical device marketing: a report on the evidence debate at a Wounds conference. Soc Sci Amp Med 2012;74:2046–52. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.026. [PubMed: 22480873] [CrossRef]
49.
Barnett J, Vasileiou K, Djemil F, Brooks L, Young T. Understanding innovators’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:342. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-342. [PMC free article: PMC3265424] [PubMed: 22176739] [CrossRef]
50.
Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, Watt I, et al. What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. BMJ 2004;329:999. 10.1136/bmj.329.7473.999. [PMC free article: PMC524545] [PubMed: 15514342] [CrossRef]
51.
Hendy J, Barlow J. Adoption in practice: the relationship between managerial interpretations of evidence and the adoption of a healthcare innovation. Health Policy Tech 2013;2:216–21. 10.1016/j.hlpt.2013.07.004. [CrossRef]
52.
Lourenco T, Grant AM, Burr JM, Vale L. The introduction of new interventional procedures in the British National Health Service – a qualitative study. Health Policy 2011;100:35–42. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.08.012. [PubMed: 20863587] [CrossRef]
53.
Sorenson C, Kanavos P. Medical technology procurement in Europe: a cross-country comparison of current practice and policy. Health Policy 2011;100:43–50. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.08.001. [PubMed: 20846739] [CrossRef]
54.
Ahmad R, Kyratsis Y, Holmes A. When the user is not the chooser: learning from stakeholder involvement in technology adoption decisions in infection control. J Hosp Infect 2012;81:163–8. 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.04.014. [PubMed: 22633278] [CrossRef]
55.
Lettieri E, Masella C. Priority setting for technology adoption at a hospital level: relevant issues from the literature. Health Policy 2009;90:81–8. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.07.007. [PubMed: 18783844] [CrossRef]
56.
Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C. Evidence into practice? An exploratory analysis of the interpretation of evidence. In Dopson S, Mark A, editors. Organisational Behaviour in Health Care: The Research Agenda. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 1999. pp. 189–206.
57.
Fleck J, Howells J. Technology, the technology complex and the paradox of technological determinism. Technol Anal Strat Manag 2001;13:523–31. 10.1080/09537320120095428. [CrossRef]
58.
Llewellyn S, Northcott D. The average hospital. Account Organ Soc 2005;30:555–83. 10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.005. [CrossRef]
59.
March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 1991;2:71–87. 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71. [CrossRef]
60.
Hood C, Rothstein H, Baldwin R. The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
61.
Honigsbaum F. The Division in British Medicine: History of the Separation of General Practice from Hospital Care, 1911–68. London: Jessica Kingsley; 1984.
62.
Llewellyn S. Purchasing power and polarized professionalism in British medicine. Account Audit Accountabil J 1997;10:31–59. 10.1108/09513579710158702. [CrossRef]
63.
Cullen J, Cohn S. Making sense of mediated information: empowerment and dependency. In Webster A, editor. New Technologies in Health Care: Challenge, Change and Innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. pp. 112–30.
64.
Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C. The nonspread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad Manag J 2005;48:117–34. 10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993150. [CrossRef]
65.
Turner BS. Medical Power and Social Knowledge. London: Sage Publications; 1987.
66.
Hogg C. Patients, Power and Politics: From Patients to Citizens. London: Sage Publications; 1999.
67.
Dent M. Changing jurisdictions within the health professions? Autonomy, accountability and evidence based practice. In Ackroyd S, Muzio D, editors. New Directions in the Study of Expert Labour: Medicine, Law and Management Consultancy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. pp. 101–17.
68.
Karsh BT. Beyond usability: designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:388–94. 10.1136/qshc.2004.010322. [PMC free article: PMC1743880] [PubMed: 15465944] [CrossRef]
69.
Dusheiko M, Goddard M, Gravelle H, Jacobs R. Trends in Health Care Commissioning in the English NHS: An Empirical Analysis. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2006.
70.
House of Commons Health Committee. Commissioning, Fourth Report of Sessions 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2010.
71.
Public Accounts Committee. The Procurement of Consumables by National Health Service Acute and Foundation Trusts. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2011.
72.
Hendy J, Barlow J. The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change. Soc Sci Amp Med 2012;74:348–55. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.009. [PubMed: 21444137] [CrossRef]
73.
Williams R, Stewart J, Slack R. Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2005.
74.
Mackenzie D. Technological determinism. In Dutton WH, editor. Society on the Line: Information Politics in the Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. pp. 41–6.
75.
Hameed MA, Counsell S, Swift S. A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations. J Engin Technol Manag 2012;29:358–90. 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.007. [CrossRef]
76.
Robert G, Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F, Peacock R. Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010;15:243–50. 10.1258/jhsrp.2010.009137. [PubMed: 20592046] [CrossRef]
77.
May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:148. 10.1186/1472-6963-7-148. [PMC free article: PMC2089069] [PubMed: 17880693] [CrossRef]
78.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82:581–629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x. [PMC free article: PMC2690184] [PubMed: 15595944] [CrossRef]
79.
McLoughlin I. Creative Technological Change: The Shaping of Technology and Organisations. Oxford: Routledge; 1999. 10.4324/9780203019870. [CrossRef]
80.
Knights D, Murray F. Managers Divided: Organisation Politics and Information Technology Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
81.
Dawson P, Buchanan D. The way it really happened: competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Hum Relat 2005;58:845–65. 10.1177/0018726705057807. [CrossRef]
82.
Neyland D, Woolgar S. Accountability in action?: the case of a database purchasing decision. Br J Sociol 2002;53:259–74. 10.1080/00071310220133331. [PubMed: 12171612] [CrossRef]
83.
Grint K, Woolgar S. The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1997.
84.
Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987.
85.
Callon M, Law J. On the construction of sociotechnical networks: content and context revisited. Knowledge Soc 1989;8:57–83.
86.
Latour B. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.
87.
Latour B. On technical mediation – philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowl 1994;3:29–64.
88.
Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
89.
Callon M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Law J, editor. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1986. pp. 196–233.
90.
Latour B. The powers of association. In Law J, editor. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1986. pp. 264–80.
91.
Law J, Callon M. Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: a network analysis of technological change. Soc Problems 1988;35:284–97. 10.1525/sp.1988.35.3.03a00060. [CrossRef]
92.
Latour B. Technology is society made durable. In Law J, editor. A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge; 1991. pp. 103–31.
93.
Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q 2001;46:685–716. 10.2307/3094828. [CrossRef]
94.
Prout A. Actor-network theory, technology and medical sociology: an illustrative analysis of the metered dose inhaler. Sociol Health Illn 1996;18:198–219. 10.1111/1467-9566.ep10934726. [CrossRef]
95.
Hall E. The ‘geneticisation’ of heart disease: a network analysis of the production of new genetic knowledge. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:2673–83. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.024. [PubMed: 15820579] [CrossRef]
96.
Novek J. IT, gender, and professional practice: or, why an automated drug distribution system was sent back to the manufacturer. Sci Technol Hum Values 2002;27:379–403. 10.1177/016224390202700303. [CrossRef]
97.
Cussins C. Ontological choreography: agency for women patients in an infertility clinic. In Berg M, Mol A-M, editors. Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques and Bodies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1998. pp. 166–201.
98.
Berg M. Accumulating and coordinating: occasions for information technologies in medical work. Comput Support Coop Work 1999;8:373–401. 10.1023/A:1008757115404. [CrossRef]
99.
Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Informat 1999;55:87–101. 10.1016/S1386-5056(99)00011-8. [PubMed: 10530825] [CrossRef]
100.
Berg M, Bowker G. The multiple bodies of the medical record: toward a sociology of an artifact. Sociol Q 1997;38:513–37. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00490.x. [CrossRef]
101.
Berg M, Langenberg C, van den Berg I, Kwakkernaat J. Considerations for sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. Int J Med Informat 1998;52:243–51. 10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00143-9. [PubMed: 9848421] [CrossRef]
102.
Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Informat 2001;64:143–56. 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00200-3. [PubMed: 11734382] [CrossRef]
103.
Bloomfield BP. The role of information systems in the UK National Health Service: action at a distance and the fetish of calculation. Soc Stud Sci 1991;21:701–34. 10.1177/030631291021004004. [CrossRef]
104.
Doolin B, McLeod L. Towards critical interpretivism in IS research. In Howcroft D, Trauth E, editors. Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2005. pp. 244–71.
105.
Bossen C. Test the artefact – develop the organization: the implementation of an electronic medication plan. Int J Med Informat 2007;76:13–21. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.01.001. [PubMed: 16455299] [CrossRef]
106.
Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A. Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Informat Decis Making 2010;10:67. 10.1186/1472-6947-10-67. [PMC free article: PMC2988706] [PubMed: 21040575] [CrossRef]
107.
Nicolini D. Medical innovation as a process of translation: a case from the field of telemedicine. Br J Manag 2010;21:1011–26. 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00627.x. [CrossRef]
108.
Law J, Hassard J. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999.
109.
McLean C, Hassard J. Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: critical notes on the production of actor–network accounts. J Manag Stud 2004;41:493–519. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00442.x. [CrossRef]
110.
Walsham G. Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects. In Lee A, Liebenau J, DeGross I, editors. Information Systems and Qualitative Research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. pp. 466–80.
111.
Mutch A. Actors and networks or agents and structures: towards a realist view of information systems. Organization 2002;9:477–96. 10.1177/135050840293013. [CrossRef]
112.
Cresswell K, Worth A, Sheikh A. Implementing and adopting electronic health record systems: how actor-network theory can support evaluation. Clin Govern 2011;16:320–36. 10.1108/14777271111175369. [CrossRef]
113.
Greenhalgh T, Stones R. Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1285–94. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034. [PubMed: 20185218] [CrossRef]
114.
Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inform Syst Res 1995;6:144–76. 10.1287/isre.6.2.144. [CrossRef]
115.
Williams R, Edge D. The social shaping of technology. Res Policy 1996;25:865–99. 10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2. [CrossRef]
116.
Llewellyn S. Boundary work: costing and caring in the social services. Account Organ Soc 1998;23:23–47. 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00036-0. [CrossRef]
117.
Llewellyn S. ‘Two-way windows’: clinicians as medical managers. Organ Stud 2001;22:593–623. 10.1177/0170840601224003. [CrossRef]
118.
Barjak F, Lane J, Kertcher Z, Poschen M, Procter R, Robinson S. Case studies of e-infrastructure adoption. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2009;27:583–600. 10.1177/0894439309332310. [CrossRef]
119.
Jirotka M, Procter R, Hartswood M, Slack R, Simpson A, Coopmans C, et al. Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: the eDiaMoND case study. Comput Support Coop Work 2005;14:369–98. 10.1007/s10606-005-9001-0. [CrossRef]
120.
Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Slack R. Making a case in medical work: implications for the electronic medical record. Comput Support Coop Work 2003;12:241–66. 10.1023/A:1025055829026. [CrossRef]
121.
Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Slack R. Performance management in breast screening: a case study of professional vision. Cogn Technol Work 2002;4:91–100. 10.1007/s101110200008. [CrossRef]
122.
Gieryn TF. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999.
123.
Gieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 1983;48:781–95. 10.2307/2095325. [CrossRef]
124.
Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1994.
125.
Guston DH. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 2001;26:399–408. 10.1177/016224390102600401. [CrossRef]
126.
Abbott A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1988.
127.
Suddaby R, Greenwood R. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Adm Sci Q 2005;50:35–67.
128.
Carlile PR. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 2002;13:442–55. 10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953. [CrossRef]
129.
Burri RV. Doing distinctions boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Soc Stud Sci 2008;38:35–62. 10.1177/0306312707082021. [CrossRef]
130.
Hargadon A, Sutton RI. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Adm Sci Q 1997;42:716–49. 10.2307/2393655. [CrossRef]
131.
Bartel CA. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Adm Sci Q 2001;46:379–413. 10.2307/3094869. [CrossRef]
132.
Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 1989;19:387–420. 10.1177/030631289019003001. [CrossRef]
133.
Bechky BA. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 2003;14:312–30. 10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162. [CrossRef]
134.
Kellogg KC, Orlikowski WJ, Yates JA. Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organ Sci 2006;17:22–44. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0157. [CrossRef]
135.
Brown JS, Duguid P. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organ Sci 1991;2:40–57. 10.1287/orsc.2.1.40. [CrossRef]
136.
Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
137.
Fox NJ. Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology 2011;45:70–85. 10.1177/0038038510387196. [CrossRef]
138.
Edmondson AC, Winslow AB, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. Learning how and learning what: effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption. Decis Sci 2003;34:197–224. 10.1111/1540-5915.02316. [CrossRef]
139.
Tabak F, Barr SH. Propensity to adopt technological innovations: the impact of personal characteristics and organizational context. J Engin Technol Manag 1999;16:247–70. 10.1016/S0923-4748(99)00011-9. [CrossRef]
140.
Holloway RM, Wilkinson C, Peters TJ, Russell I, Cohen D, Hale J, et al. Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:620. [PMC free article: PMC1314676] [PubMed: 14601338]
141.
Cohen D, Longo MF, Hood K, Edwards A, Elwyn G. Resource effects of training general practitioners in risk communication skills and shared decision making competences. J Eval Clin Prac 2004;10:439–45. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2004.00503.x. [PubMed: 15304144] [CrossRef]
142.
Fleck J. Innofusion or Diffusation?: The Nature of Technological Development in Robotics. Edinburgh: Research Centre for Social Sciences, University of Edinburgh; 1988.
143.
Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2008.
144.
Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 1989;14:532–50. 10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385. [CrossRef]
145.
Barnard KD, Lloyd CE, Skinner TC. Systematic literature review: quality of life associated with insulin pump use in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2007;24:607–17. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02120.x. [PubMed: 17367304] [CrossRef]
146.
National Diabetes Information Service. Insulin Pump Audit – Findings for England. 2010. URL: www​.diabetes.org.uk/Documents​/nhs-diabetes​/insulin-pumps/insulin-pump-audit-final-report.pdf (accessed 12 January 2013).
147.
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:85. 10.1186/1472-6963-7-85. [PMC free article: PMC1906856] [PubMed: 17570838] [CrossRef]
148.
Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2008.
149.
Savage J. Ethnography and health care. BMJ 2000;321:1400–2. 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1400. [PMC free article: PMC1119117] [PubMed: 11099288] [CrossRef]
150.
Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 2009;9:27–40. 10.3316/QRJ0902027. [CrossRef]
151.
Bryman A. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
152.
Karat J. User-centered software evaluation methodologies. Handbook Hum-Comput Interact 1997;2:689–704.
153.
King N. Template analysis. In Symon G, Cassell C, editors. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd; 1998. pp. 118–34.
154.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
155.
NHS Technology Adoption Centre. Meet the Team; 2013. URL: www​.ntac.nhs.uk/AboutUs/Meet-the-Team​.aspx (accessed 26 February 2013).
156.
Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ 2011;342:d2748. 10.1136/bmj.d2748. [PubMed: 21572130] [CrossRef]
157.
Ramsay G. Teaching and Learning with Information and Communication Technology: Success through a Whole School Approach. Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC); 2001.
158.
Harty C. Implementing innovation in construction: contexts, relative boundedness and actor-network theory. Construct Manag Econ 2008;26:1029–41. 10.1080/01446190802298413. [CrossRef]
159.
Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 1985;91:481–510. 10.1086/228311. [CrossRef]
160.
Akrich M. The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker WE, Law J, editors. Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992. pp. 205–24.
161.
Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press; 1986.
162.
Fox S. Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. J Manag Stud 2000;37:853–68. 10.1111/1467-6486.00207. [CrossRef]
163.
Latour B. On recalling ANT. In Law J, Hassard J, editors. Actor Network Theory and After. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. pp. 23–34.
164.
Law J. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. System Prac Act Res 1992;5:379–93. 10.1007/BF01059830. [CrossRef]
165.
Strathern M. Writing societies, writing persons. History Hum Sci 1992;5:5–16. 10.1177/095269519200500101. [CrossRef]
166.
Law J. Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986.
167.
Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A, Harvey G, Kitson A, McCormack B. What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? J Adv Nurs 2004;47:81–90. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03068.x. [PubMed: 15186471] [CrossRef]
168.
Dopson S, Locock L, Gabbay J, Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L. Evidence-based medicine and the implementation gap. Health 2003;7:311–30.
169.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Past Technology Appraisals and Those Under Development; 2012.URL: www​.nice.org.uk/guidance​/ta/indevelopment/index.jsp?p=off (accessed 30 August 2012).
170.
Mackenzie PJ, Russell M, Ma PE, Isbister CM, Al Maberley D. Sensitivity and specificity of the optos optomap for detecting peripheral retinal lesions. Retina 2007;27:1119–24. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3180592b5c. [PubMed: 18040256] [CrossRef]
171.
Manivannan A, Plskova J, Farrow A, McKay S, Sharp PF, Forrester JV. Ultra-wide-field fluorescein angiography of the ocular fundus. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:525–7. 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.02.055. [PubMed: 16139004] [CrossRef]
172.
Witmer MT, Kiss S. The clinical utility of ultra-wide-field imaging: a look at four widely available methods of imaging the peripheral retina that are making photography more clinically practical. Rev Ophthalmol 2012;19:60–5.
173.
Mayers H. The Optos Panoramic200− Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope: advancing optometric practice. Clin Refract Optom 2004;15:156–67.
174.
Khandhadia S, Madhusudhana KC, Kostakou A, Forrester JV, Newsom RSB. Use of Optomap for retinal screening within an eye casualty setting. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:52–5. 10.1136/bjo.2008.148072. [PubMed: 18971233] [CrossRef]
175.
WebMD. Eye Health Center; 2013. URL: www​.webmd.com/eye-health (accessed 26 February 2013).
176.
Access Economics. Future Sight Loss UK 1: Economic Impact of Partial Sight and Blindness in the UK Adult Population. London: RNIB; 2009.
177.
Hariprasad SM, Patel RD, Kitchens JW. The Uncharted Realm of the Retinal Periphery. 2011. URL: www​.retinalphysician​.com/articleviewer.aspx?articleid=105157 (accessed 20 December 2012).
178.
Albert DM, Miller JW, Azar DT, Blodi BA. Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008.
179.
Anderson D. Optos: The Design Challenges and Business Tribulations. Lecture at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 10 March. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society of Edinburgh; 2008.
180.
Optos. Product Description; 2013. URL: www​.optos.com/en-GB/Professionals​/Ophthalmology​/Product-description/ (accessed 26 February 2013).
181.
Nath S, Sherman J, Battaglia M. Is OPTOS imaging additive or duplicative to a dilated fundus exam? Invest Ophtalmol Visual Sci 2005;46:E–Abstract 1554.
182.
Friberg TR, Pandya A, Eller AW. Non-mydriatic panoramic fundus imaging using a non-contact scanning laser-based system. Ophthal Surg Lasers Imag 2003;34:488–97. [PubMed: 14620758]
183.
Silva PS, Cavallerano JD, Sun JK, Noble J, Aiello LM, Aiello LP. Nonmydriatic ultrawide field retinal imaging compared with dilated standard 7-field 35-mm photography and retinal specialist examination for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;154:549–59. 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.03.019. [PubMed: 22626617] [CrossRef]
184.
Ilett G, Kimber J. Demand Management Scheme: The Community Ophthalmology Team. UK: Practice-based Commissioning Workshop; 2007.
185.
Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward K. Domestication of Media and Technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
186.
Middleton D, Brown S. Net-working on a neonatal intensive care unit: the baby as virtual object. In Czarniawska B, Hernes T, editors. Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Sweden: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press; 2005. pp. 307–28.
187.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Commissioning an Insulin Pump Therapy Service. Commissioning Guide – Implementing NICE Guidance. London: NICE; 2009.
188.
Lenhard MJ, Reeves GD. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: a comprehensive review of insulin pump therapy. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2293–300. 10.1001/archinte.161.19.2293. [PubMed: 11606144] [CrossRef]
189.
Torrance T, Franklin V, Greene S. Insulin pumps. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:949–53. 10.1136/adc.88.11.949. [PMC free article: PMC1719341] [PubMed: 14612350] [CrossRef]
190.
Scheiner G, Sobel RJ, Smith DE, Pick AJ, Kruger D, King J, et al. Insulin pump therapy: guidelines for successful outcomes. Diabet Educ 2009;35(Suppl. 2):29S–41S. 10.1177/0145721709333493. [PubMed: 19318690] [CrossRef]
191.
Sherr J, Tamborlane WV. Past, present, and future of insulin pump therapy: better shot at diabetes control. Mount Sinai J Med 2008;75:352–61. 10.1002/msj.20055. [PMC free article: PMC2562271] [PubMed: 18729180] [CrossRef]
192.
Jakisch BI, Wagner VM, Heidtmann B, Lepler R, Holterhus PM, Kapellen TM, et al. Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric type 1 diabetes: a multicentre matched-pair cohort analysis over 3 years. Diabet Med 2008;25:80–5. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02311.x. [PubMed: 18199134] [CrossRef]
193.
Hoogma R, Hammond PJ, Gomis R, Kerr D, Bruttomesso D, Bouter KP, et al. Comparison of the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and NPH-based multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) on glycaemic control and quality of life: results of the 5-nations trial. Diabet Med 2006;23:141–7. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01738.x. [PubMed: 16433711] [CrossRef]
194.
Doyle EA, Weinzimer SA, Steffen AT, Ahern JAH, Vincent M, Tamborlane WV. A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. Diabet Care 2004;27:1554–8. 10.2337/diacare.27.7.1554. [PubMed: 15220227] [CrossRef]
195.
Hirsch IB, Bode BW, Garg S, Lane WS, Sussman A, Hu P, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) of insulin aspart versus multiple daily injection of insulin aspart/insulin glargine in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII. Diabet Care 2005;28:533–8. 10.2337/diacare.28.3.533. [PubMed: 15735183] [CrossRef]
196.
Raskin P, Bode BW, Marks JB, Hirsch IB, Weinstein RL, McGill JB, et al. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection therapy are equally effective in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, parallel-group, 24-week study. Diabet Care 2003;26:2598–603. 10.2337/diacare.26.9.2598. [PubMed: 12941725] [CrossRef]
197.
Pickup J, Keen H. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion at 25 years: evidence base for the expanding use of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Care 2002;25:593–8. 10.2337/diacare.25.3.593. [PubMed: 11874953] [CrossRef]
198.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) Research Group. Implementation of treatment protocols in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabet Care 1995;18:361–76. 10.2337/diacare.18.3.361. [PubMed: 7555480] [CrossRef]
199.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) Research Group. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT): the effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–86. 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401. [PubMed: 8366922] [CrossRef]
200.
Tamborlane WV, Bonfig W, Boland E. Recent advances in treatment of youth with type 1 diabetes: better care through technology. Diabet Med 2001;18:864–70. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2001.00626.x. [PubMed: 11703429] [CrossRef]
201.
Pickup J. Insulin pump therapy: pros and cons of continuous infusion. Prescriber 2009;20:12–16. 10.1002/psb.541. [CrossRef]
202.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus. Review of Technology Appraisal Guidance 57. London: NICE; 2008.
203.
Department of Health. Insulin Pump Services: Report of the Insulin Pumps Working Group. London: Department of Health; 2007.
204.
Medical Technology Group. Pump Action – A Review of Insulin Pump Uptake and NICE Guidance in English Primary Care Trusts. London: Medical Technology Group; 2010.
205.
National Technology Adoption Centre. How to Why to Guide: Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion; 2010. URL: www​.ntac.nhs.uk/HowToWhyToGuides​/ContinuousSubcutaneousInsulinInfusion​/Insulin-Infusion-Executive-Summary.aspx (accessed 12 February 2013).
206.
National Technology Adoption Centre. BNLA How to Why to Guide; 2011. URL: www​.ntac.nhs.uk/HowToWhyToGuides​/BreastLymphNodeAssay​/Breast-Lymph-Node-Assay-Executive-Summary.aspx (accessed 12 February 2013).
207.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Early and Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. London: NICE; 2009. [PubMed: 19167201]
208.
Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C, editors. Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
209.
Buscher M, Goodwin D, Mesman J, editors. Ethnographies of Diagnostic Work: Dimensions of Transformative Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010.
210.
Haynes RB. Loose connections between peer-reviewed clinical journals and clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:724–8. 10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-724. [PubMed: 2221658] [CrossRef]
211.
Broom A, Adams J, editors. Evidence-based Healthcare in Context: Critical Social Science Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2012.
212.
Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C. Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Hum Relat 2002;55:1429–49. 10.1177/001872602128782213. [CrossRef]
213.
Clement M, McDonald MD. Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:56–62. 10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_Part_1-199601010-00009. [PubMed: 7503478] [CrossRef]
214.
Wilson CB. Surgery: adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 2006;332:112. 10.1136/bmj.332.7533.112. [PMC free article: PMC1326944] [PubMed: 16410591] [CrossRef]
215.
Brown N, Michael M. A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technol Anal Strat Manag 2003;15:3–18. 10.1080/0953732032000046024. [CrossRef]
216.
Cutress RI, McDowell A, Gabriel FG, Gill J, Jeffrey MJ, Agrawal A, et al. Observational and cost analysis of the implementation of breast cancer sentinel node intraoperative molecular diagnosis. J Clin Pathol 2010;63:522–9. 10.1136/jcp.2009.072942. [PubMed: 20439323] [CrossRef]
217.
Stevens A, Milne R, Lilford R, Gabbay J. Keeping pace with new technologies: systems needed to identify and evaluate them. BMJ 1999;319:1291. 10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1291. [PMC free article: PMC1129069] [PubMed: 10559044] [CrossRef]
218.
Ling T, Soper B, Marjanovic S, Celia C, Yaqub O, Reding A, et al. Delivering the Aims of the CLAHRCs: Evaluating CLAHRCs’ Strategies and Contributions. Interim Report: Phase 1. Cambridge: Rand Europe; 2011.
219.
Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R, et al. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Implement Sci 2011;6:74. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-74. [PMC free article: PMC3168414] [PubMed: 21771329] [CrossRef]
220.
Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Holmes A. Technology adoption and implementation in organisations: comparative case studies of 12 English NHS Trusts. BMJ Open 2012;2. [PMC free article: PMC3329608] [PubMed: 22492183]
221.
Simpson M, Buckman R, Stewart M, Maguire P, Lipkin M, Novack D, et al. Doctor–patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. BMJ 1991;303:1385–7. 10.1136/bmj.303.6814.1385. [PMC free article: PMC1671610] [PubMed: 1760608] [CrossRef]
222.
Eastaugh SR. Reducing litigation costs through better patient communication. Phys Exec 2004;30:36–8. [PubMed: 15179889]
223.
Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 1999;318:318–22. 10.1136/bmj.318.7179.318. [PMC free article: PMC1114785] [PubMed: 9924064] [CrossRef]
224.
The King’s Fund. Where Next for the NHS Reforms? The Case for Integrated Care. London: The King’s Fund; 2011.
225.
Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians. JAMA 2007;297:831–41. 10.1001/jama.297.8.831. [PubMed: 17327525] [CrossRef]
226.
Field S. ‘We cannot rest’: perspectives on innovation, health and wealth. Health Serv J 2012. (Suppl. 31 May). [PubMed: 22950169]
227.
Smith J, Mays N, Dixon J, Goodwin N, Lewis R, McClelland S, et al. A Review of the Effectiveness of Primary Care-led Commissioning and Its Place in the NHS. London: Health Foundation; 2004.
228.
Ham C. Health Care Commissioning in the International Context: Lessons from Experience and Evidence. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre; 2008.
229.
FitzGibbon F, Huckle D, Meenan BJ. Barriers affecting the adoption of point-of-care technologies used in chest pain diagnosis within the UK National Health Service: part 2 – manufacturer pricing and reimbursement policy issues. Point Care 2010;9:80–90.
230.
Kane NM, Manoukian PD. The effect of the Medicare prospective payment system on the adoption of new technology. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1378–83. 10.1056/NEJM198911163212006. [PubMed: 2509911] [CrossRef]
231.
Department of Health. Payment by Results: Code of Conduct 2008. London: Department of Health Publications; 2008.
232.
Wilson T, Buck D, Ham C. Rising to the challenge: will the NHS support people with long term conditions? BMJ 2005;330:657–61. 10.1136/bmj.330.7492.657. [PMC free article: PMC554919] [PubMed: 15775000] [CrossRef]
233.
Farrar S, Yi D, Sutton M, Chalkley M, Sussex J, Scott A. Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-differences analysis. BMJ 2009;339:b3047. 10.1136/bmj.b3047. [PMC free article: PMC2733950] [PubMed: 19713233] [CrossRef]
234.
Christensen CM, Grossman JH, Hwang J. The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
235.
Hwang J, Christensen CM. Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: a framework for business-model innovation. Health Affairs 2008;27:1329–35. 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1329. [PubMed: 18780919] [CrossRef]
236.
Brunsson N. Deciding for responsibility and legitimation: alternative interpretations of organizational decision-making. Account Organ Soc 1990;15:47–59. 10.1016/0361-3682(90)90012-J. [CrossRef]
237.
Ahrne G, Brunsson N. Organization outside organizations: the significance of partial organization. Organization 2011;18:83–104. 10.1177/1350508410376256. [CrossRef]
238.
McCafferty S, Williams I, Hunter D, Robinson S, Donaldson C, Bate A. Implementing world class commissioning competencies. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012;17(Suppl. 1):40–8. 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011104. [PubMed: 22315476] [CrossRef]
239.
Department of Health. Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: HMSO; 2010.
240.
Ham C. World class commissioning: a health policy chimera? J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13:116–21. 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007177. [PubMed: 18416918] [CrossRef]
241.
Bovaird T. Developing new forms of partnership with the ‘market’ in the procurement of public services. Public Adm 2006;84:81–102. 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2006.00494.x. [CrossRef]
242.
Woodin J. Healthcare Commissioning and Contracting. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.
243.
Faulkner A. Medical Technology into Healthcare and Society: a Sociology of Devices, Innovation and Governance: Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.
244.
Keogh B. ‘We cannot rest’: perspectives on innovation, health and wealth. Health Serv J 2012;(Suppl. 6–7). [PubMed: 22950169]
245.
Pollock N, Williams R. The business of expectations: how promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Soc Stud Sci 2010;40:525–48. 10.1177/0306312710362275. [CrossRef]
246.
Smith W. Theatre of use: a frame analysis of information technology demonstrations. Soc Stud Sci 2009;39:449–80. 10.1177/0306312708101978. [CrossRef]
247.
Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2000.
248.
Michael M. Futures of the present: from performativity to prehension. In Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A, editors. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2000. pp. 21–39.
249.
Law J, Singleton V. Object lessons. Organization 2005;12:331–55. 10.1177/1350508405051270. [CrossRef]
250.
Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Ramsay C, Fraser C, et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement: evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966–1998. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:S14–20. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00357.x. [PMC free article: PMC2557130] [PubMed: 16637955] [CrossRef]
251.
Bak K, Dobrow M, Hodgson D, Whitton A. Factors affecting the implementation of complex and evolving technologies: multiple case study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in Ontario, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:178. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-178. [PMC free article: PMC3164623] [PubMed: 21801450] [CrossRef]
252.
NHS Improving Quality. Our Strategic Intent: NHS Improving Quality. 2013. URL: www​.england.nhs.uk/wp-content​/uploads/2013/04/nhsiq-intent​.pdf (accessed 2 March 2013).
253.
Checkland K, Coleman A, Segar J, McDermott I, Miller R, Wallace A, et al. Exploring the Early Workings of Emerging Clinical Commissioning Groups: Final Report. UK: Policy Research Unit in Commissioning and the Healthcare System; 2012.
254.
Right Care. NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare Series. URL: www.rightcare.nhs.uk/index.php/nhs-atlas/ (accessed 30 July 2013).
255.
Boriani G, Burri H, Mantovani LG, Maniadakis N, Leyva F, Kautzner J, et al. Device therapy and hospital reimbursement practices across European countries: a heterogeneous scenario. Europace 2011;13(Suppl. 2):ii59–65. 10.1093/europace/eur080. [PubMed: 21518752] [CrossRef]
256.
FitzGibbon F, Huckle D, Meenan BJ. Barriers affecting the adoption of point-of-care technologies used in chest pain diagnosis within the UK National Health Service: part 1 – user issues. Point Care 2010;9:70–9.
257.
Gratwohl A, Schwendener A, Baldomero H, Gratwohl M, Apperley J, Niederwieser D, et al. Changes in the use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a model for diffusion of medical technology. Haematologica 2010;95:637–43. 10.3324/haematol.2009.015586. [PMC free article: PMC2857194] [PubMed: 20378578] [CrossRef]
258.
Sharma U, Barnett J, Clarke M. Clinical users’ perspective on telemonitoring of patients with long term conditions: understood through concepts of Giddens’s structuration theory & consequence of modernity. Stud Health Technol Informat 2010;160:545–9. [PubMed: 20841746]
259.
Williams I, Dickinson H. Can knowledge management enhance technology adoption in healthcare? A review of the literature. Evidence Policy 2010;6:309–31. 10.1332/174426410X524811. [CrossRef]
Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014. This work was produced by Llewellyn et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK259893

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.1M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...