Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research

The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada

Authors: R. Urquhart, C. Kendell, L. Geldenhuys, A. Ross, M. Rajaraman, A. Folkes, L. L. Madden, V. Sullivan, D. Rayson, G. A. Porter

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health care delivery and outcomes can be improved by using innovations (i.e., new ideas, technologies, and practices) supported by scientific evidence. However, scientific evidence may not be the foremost factor in adoption decisions and is rarely sufficient. The objective of this study was to examine the role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care.

Methods

Using an explanatory, multiple case study design, we examined the adoption of complex innovations in five purposively sampled cases in Nova Scotia, Canada. Data were collected via documents and key informant interviews. Data analysis involved an in-depth analysis of each case, followed by a cross-case analysis to develop theoretically informed, generalizable knowledge on the role of scientific evidence in innovation adoption that may be applied to similar settings and contexts.

Results

The analyses identified key concepts alongside important caveats and considerations. Key concepts were (1) scientific evidence underpinned the adoption process, (2) evidence from multiple sources informed decision-making, (3) decision-makers considered three key issues when making decisions, and (4) champions were essential to eventual adoption. Caveats and considerations related to the presence of urgent problems and short-term financial pressures and minimizing risk.

Conclusions

The findings revealed the different types of issues decision-makers consider while making these decisions and why different sources of evidence are needed in these processes. Future research should examine how different types of evidence are legitimized and why some types are prioritized over others.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Klein KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manag Rev. 1996;21(4):1055–80.CrossRef
2.
3.
Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. The Canadian strategy for cancer control: a cancer plan for Canada - discussion paper. Ottawa, ON: CSCC Governing Council; 2006.
4.
Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II-46–54.
5.
McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.CrossRef
6.
Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):517–63 509.CrossRef
7.
Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(1):207–17.CrossRef
8.
Fitzgerald L, Dopson S. Knowledge, credible evidence, and utilization. In: Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, editors. Knowledge to action? Evidence-based health care in contex. edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
9.
Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Hawkins C. Innovation in healthcare: how does credible evidence influence professionals? Health Soc Care Community. 2003;11(3):219–28.CrossRef
10.
Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C. Evidence into practice? An exploratory analysis of the interpretation of evidence. In: Marks A, Dopson S, editors. Organisation behaviour in health care. edn. London: Macmillan; 1999.
11.
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(1):81–90.CrossRef
12.
Oliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(suppl_2):112–7.
13.
Oliver KA, de Vocht F, Money A, Everett M. Identifying public health policymakers’ sources of information: comparing survey and network analyses. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(suppl_2):118–23.
14.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.CrossRef
15.
Turner S, D'Lima D, Hudson E, Morris S, Sheringham J, Swart N, Fulop NJ. Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):145.CrossRef
16.
Oliver K, Pearce W. Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(43):1–7.
17.
Culyer A, Rawlins M. Evidence and quality, practicalities and judgments: some experience from NICE. Healthc Q. 2012;15(Special Issue):66–9.CrossRef
18.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
19.
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.
20.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRef
21.
Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.CrossRef
22.
Curtis S, Gesler W, Smith G, Washburn S. Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(7–8):1001–14.CrossRef
23.
Kneale D, Rojas-Garcia A, Raine R, Thomas J. The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):53.CrossRef
24.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2002.
25.
Rubin H, Rubin I. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.
26.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
27.
Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M, Hawkins C. Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Hum Relat. 2002;55(12):1429–49.CrossRef
28.
Bak K, Dobrow MJ, 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.CrossRef
29.
Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, Estabrooks C. Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):174–80.CrossRef
30.
Ferlie E, Wood M, Fitzgerald L. Some limits to evidence-based medicine: a case study from elective orthopaedics. Qual Health Care. 1999;8(2):99–107.CrossRef
31.
Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Holmes A. Technology adoption and implementation in organisations: comparative case studies of 12 English NHS Trusts. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):e000872.CrossRef
32.
Evans BA, Snooks H, Howson H, Davies M. How hard can it be to include research evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2013;8:17.CrossRef
33.
Westphal JD, Gulati R, Shortell SM. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Admin Sci Quart. 1997;42:366–94.CrossRef
34.
Abrahamson E. Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovations. Acad Manag Rev. 1991;16:586–612.CrossRef
35.
Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Hatzaras K, Iwami M, Holmes A. Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2(6)1–191.
36.
Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001;285(20):2604–11.CrossRef
37.
Soo S, Berta W, Baker GR. Role of champions in the implementation of patient safety practice change. Healthc Q. 2009;12:123–8.CrossRef
38.
Sharkey S, Hudak S, Horn SD, Barrett R, Spector W, Limcangco R. Exploratory study of nursing home factors associated with successful implementation of clinical decision support tools for pressure ulcer prevention. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013;26(2):83–92 quiz p 93–84.CrossRef
39.
Aagaard EM, Gonzales R, Camargo CA Jr, Auten R, Levin SK, Maselli J, Metlay J. Physician champions are key to improving antibiotic prescribing quality. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(3):109–16.CrossRef
40.
Urquhart R, Porter GA, Sargeant J, Jackson L, Grunfeld E. Multi-level factors influence the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: a multiple case study of synoptic reporting. Implement Sci. 2014;9:121.CrossRef
41.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef
42.
Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(4):228–43.CrossRef
43.
Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, Mckinney MM, Minasian L. Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(3):279–303.CrossRef
44.
Li SA, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B. Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):72.CrossRef
45.
46.
Firestone W. Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educ Res. 1993;22(4):16–23.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada
Authors
R. Urquhart
C. Kendell
L. Geldenhuys
A. Ross
M. Rajaraman
A. Folkes
L. L. Madden
V. Sullivan
D. Rayson
G. A. Porter
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0859-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Implementation Science 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

The influence of a blended, theoretically-informed pre-implementation strategy on school-based clinician implementation of an evidence-based trauma intervention

Methodology

Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour

Systematic review

Factors influencing national implementation of innovations within community pharmacy: a systematic review applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Research

Preferences for peer-reviewed versus other publication sources: a survey of general dentists in the National Dental PBRN

Methodology

Using a continuum of hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies to put research-tested colorectal screening interventions into practice

Systematic review

Status and potential of bacterial genomics for public health practice: a scoping review