Suzanne M Cadarette1, Joann K Ban2, Giulia P Consiglio2, Cody D Black2, David Dubins2, Alexandra Marin3, Mina Tadrous2. 1. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3M2, Canada. Electronic address: s.cadarette@utoronto.ca. 2. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3M2, Canada. 3. Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, 725 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2J4, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the diffusion of methodological innovation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative case study analysis of the diffusion of two methods that summarize confounder information into a single score: disease risk score (DRS) and high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS). We completed systematic searches to identify DRS and hdPS papers in the field of pharmacoepidemiology through to the end of 2013, plotted the number of papers and unique authors over time, and created sociograms and animations to visualize co-authorship networks. First and last author affiliations were used to ascribe institutional contributions to each paper and network. RESULTS: We identified 43 DRS papers by 153 authors since 1981, reflecting slow uptake during initial periods of uncertainty and broader diffusion since 2001 linked to early adopters from Vanderbilt. We identified 44 hdPS papers by 147 authors since 2009, reflecting rapid and integrated diffusion, likely facilitated by opinion leaders, early presentation at conferences, easily accessible statistical code, and improvement in funding. Most contributions (87% DRS, 96% hdPS) were from North America. CONCLUSION: When proposing new methods, authors are encouraged to consider innovation attributes and early evaluation to improve knowledge translation of their innovations for integration into practice, and we provide recommendations for consideration.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the diffusion of methodological innovation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative case study analysis of the diffusion of two methods that summarize confounder information into a single score: disease risk score (DRS) and high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS). We completed systematic searches to identify DRS and hdPS papers in the field of pharmacoepidemiology through to the end of 2013, plotted the number of papers and unique authors over time, and created sociograms and animations to visualize co-authorship networks. First and last author affiliations were used to ascribe institutional contributions to each paper and network. RESULTS: We identified 43 DRS papers by 153 authors since 1981, reflecting slow uptake during initial periods of uncertainty and broader diffusion since 2001 linked to early adopters from Vanderbilt. We identified 44 hdPS papers by 147 authors since 2009, reflecting rapid and integrated diffusion, likely facilitated by opinion leaders, early presentation at conferences, easily accessible statistical code, and improvement in funding. Most contributions (87% DRS, 96% hdPS) were from North America. CONCLUSION: When proposing new methods, authors are encouraged to consider innovation attributes and early evaluation to improve knowledge translation of their innovations for integration into practice, and we provide recommendations for consideration.
Authors: Adam J Streeter; Nan Xuan Lin; Louise Crathorne; Marcela Haasova; Christopher Hyde; David Melzer; William E Henley Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: N Konstantelos; A M Rzepka; A M Burden; A M Cheung; S Kim; P Grootendorst; S M Cadarette Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 5.071