Literature DB >> 24331887

Technology identity: the role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices.

S Ulucanlar1, A Faulkner2, S Peirce3, G Elwyn4.   

Abstract

This study explored the sociotechnical influences shaping the naturally-occurring adoption and non-adoption of device technologies in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), amid increasing policy interest in this area. The study was informed by Science and Technology Studies and structuration and Actor Network Theory perspectives, drawing attention to the performative capacities of the technology alongside human agentic forces such as agendas and expectations, in the context of structural and macro conditions. Eight technologies were studied using a comparative ethnographic case study design and purposive and snowball sampling to identify relevant NHS, academic and industry participants. Data were collected between May 2009 and February 2012, included in-depth interviews, conference observations and printed and web-based documents and were analysed using constructivist grounded theory methods. The study suggests that while adoption decisions are made within the jurisdiction of healthcare organisations, they are shaped within a dynamic and fluid 'adoption space' that transcends organisational and geographic boundaries. Diverse influences from the industry, health care organisation and practice, health technology assessment and policy interact to produce 'technology identities.' Technology identities are composite and contested attributes that encompass different aspects of the technology (novelty, effectiveness, utility, risks, requirements) and that give a distinctive character to each. We argue that it is these socially constructed and contingent heuristic identities that shape the desirability, acceptability, feasibility and adoptability of each technology, a perspective that policy must acknowledge in seeking to intervene in health care technology adoption.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adoption; Adoption space; Diffusion; Medical devices; NHS; Science and technology studies; Technology identity; UK

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24331887     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of Nine Consensus Indices in Delphi Foresight Research and Their Dependency on Delphi Survey Characteristics: A Simulation Study and Debate on Delphi Design and Interpretation.

Authors:  Stanislav Birko; Edward S Dove; Vural Özdemir
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Mapping intravascular ultrasound controversies in interventional cardiology practice.

Authors:  David Maresca; Samantha Adams; Bruno Maresca; Antonius F W van der Steen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  In the loop: Practices of self-monitoring from accounts by trial participants.

Authors:  Rebecca Lynch; Simon Cohn
Journal:  Health (London)       Date:  2015-10-13

4.  Implementing solutions to improve and expand telehealth adoption: participatory action research in four community healthcare settings.

Authors:  Johanna Taylor; Elizabeth Coates; Bridgette Wessels; Gail Mountain; Mark S Hawley
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Who Should Access Closed-Loop Technology? A Qualitative Study of Clinician Attitudes in England.

Authors:  Conor Farrington; Roman Hovorka; Helen R Murphy
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 6.118

6.  How Political Cultures Produce Different Antibiotic Policies in Agriculture: A Historical Comparative Case Study between the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Authors:  Stephanie Begemann; Elizabeth Perkins; Ine Van Hoyweghen; Robert Christley; Francine Watkins
Journal:  Sociol Ruralis       Date:  2018-02-06

7.  Health professionals' experiences with the implementation of a digital medication dispenser in home care services - a qualitative study.

Authors:  Hanne H Kleiven; Birgitte Ljunggren; Marit Solbjør
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.655

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.