PAPERS WEEK OVERARCHING AUTHOR THEME
THEME
1 The strategic context of Barlow (2017) Barlow explains what is meant by technology and what the nature of
healthcare innovations I & innovation is. There are different forms of innovation, such as product,
II process, and service innovations. Innovations can be radical or incremental.
Taylor & Hawley Intro discusses what we define as health and what health policies entail. Part I
(2010) Intro, Parts discusses the politics behind healthcare provision: the role of the state, the
I and II private sector, and the voluntary sector. Part II discusses how “we” (state and
A private) set priorities in the provision of healthcare regarding health
inequalities, health promotion and rationing
2 The strategic context of Taylor & Hawley Part III discusses the differences between patients and health professionals,
healthcare innovations III (2010) Part III explicitly zooming in on patients’ rights and professionalism
Scholars’ view on Hwang & Hwang & Christensen (2008) discuss how disruptive technologies must be
healthcare innovation Christensen matched with innovative business models. How can healthcare be made more
(2008) affordable? Move from solution shops to value based healthcare: value-
adding process businesses and facilitated user networks
Porter & Lee Porter & Lee (2013) essentially argue what Hwang & Christensen (2008)
(2013) argue, however, their approach is more focused. They essentially show an
example of how healthcare should move to value-based healthcare through
the implementation of IPUs.
3 The Dutch context: Wammes et al. Description of the Dutch healthcare system
healthcare system and (2015)
innovative developments
4 Guest Lecture: HeartNet Boonstra, van This article is one of the four articles that focuses on stakeholder
(Michiel Rienstra) Offenbeek & Vos management: it discusses that stakeholders and tension awareness between
(2017) stakeholders are a requirement for project implementation success. Unitarist
thinking and linear rational approaches are still common in large tech
Stakeholder models for projects.
healthcare innovation Kohli & Kettinger Introduces two interventions into hospital setting to see what happens if a
B (2004) principal does not possess the legitimacy to impose an agent’s use of
information and/or behavioral conformance. Two interventions: DSS +
providing legitimate actor. To understand hospital-physician relationships,
, ARC was used.
5 Pouloudi, Curry This article the development and implementation of a national IT
& Whitley (2016) infrastructure in the healthcare sector was tracked. Through the integration of
the diverse existing technologies for patient-data sharing challenging issues
arise for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders at the
inter-organizational level. Moreover, on the intra-organizational level, the
scarce financial resources for healthcare technologies are competed on. This
study adopts an interpretative stakeholder analysis to capture the diversity
and complexity of the task ahead.
Van Offenbeek, Propose behavior-oriented framework. Discusses the different roles of
Boonstra & Seo stakeholders towards acceptance and resistance. Former IS literatures only
(2013) defines between users and non-users while there is also a difference between
accepting/resisting users/non-users. TAM = too narrow.
6 Guest Lecture: TREAT Damschroder et Damschroder et al. (2009) defined a model for the implementation of
(Lucas Roebroek) al. (2009) healthcare innovations: the consolidated framework for implementation
research (CFIR). This CFIR comprises common constructs from published
implementation tools. It offers an overarching typology, a list of constructs to
C Innovation implementation promote theory development and verification about what works where and
frameworks (for healthcare why across multiple contexts.
innovation) Greenhalgh et al. This study has two parallel components, i.e., secondary research to identify
(2017) key domains, and empirical case studies of tech implementation to explore,
test, and refine the domains. With these components, the researchers
developed the NASSS framework (non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up,
spread, and sustainability), showing promise when applied to other programs.
Grol, Bosch & Both CFIR and NASSS are a framework, and not an implementation strategy.
Wensing (2013) Greenhalgh et al. (2017) argue that implementation strategies cannot be
standardized and therefore not exist. Grol, Bosch and Wensing (2013) argue
otherwise: there are explorative and theory-based methods
7 Nolte (2018) Nolte (2018) wrote a policy brief to develop key messages to support
evidence-informed policymaking. Key issues include the rising burden of
chronic health programs, multi-morbidity, and a changing demand imposing
strain on already stretched systems. In this paper, the “makes or breaks” of an
THEME
1 The strategic context of Barlow (2017) Barlow explains what is meant by technology and what the nature of
healthcare innovations I & innovation is. There are different forms of innovation, such as product,
II process, and service innovations. Innovations can be radical or incremental.
Taylor & Hawley Intro discusses what we define as health and what health policies entail. Part I
(2010) Intro, Parts discusses the politics behind healthcare provision: the role of the state, the
I and II private sector, and the voluntary sector. Part II discusses how “we” (state and
A private) set priorities in the provision of healthcare regarding health
inequalities, health promotion and rationing
2 The strategic context of Taylor & Hawley Part III discusses the differences between patients and health professionals,
healthcare innovations III (2010) Part III explicitly zooming in on patients’ rights and professionalism
Scholars’ view on Hwang & Hwang & Christensen (2008) discuss how disruptive technologies must be
healthcare innovation Christensen matched with innovative business models. How can healthcare be made more
(2008) affordable? Move from solution shops to value based healthcare: value-
adding process businesses and facilitated user networks
Porter & Lee Porter & Lee (2013) essentially argue what Hwang & Christensen (2008)
(2013) argue, however, their approach is more focused. They essentially show an
example of how healthcare should move to value-based healthcare through
the implementation of IPUs.
3 The Dutch context: Wammes et al. Description of the Dutch healthcare system
healthcare system and (2015)
innovative developments
4 Guest Lecture: HeartNet Boonstra, van This article is one of the four articles that focuses on stakeholder
(Michiel Rienstra) Offenbeek & Vos management: it discusses that stakeholders and tension awareness between
(2017) stakeholders are a requirement for project implementation success. Unitarist
thinking and linear rational approaches are still common in large tech
Stakeholder models for projects.
healthcare innovation Kohli & Kettinger Introduces two interventions into hospital setting to see what happens if a
B (2004) principal does not possess the legitimacy to impose an agent’s use of
information and/or behavioral conformance. Two interventions: DSS +
providing legitimate actor. To understand hospital-physician relationships,
, ARC was used.
5 Pouloudi, Curry This article the development and implementation of a national IT
& Whitley (2016) infrastructure in the healthcare sector was tracked. Through the integration of
the diverse existing technologies for patient-data sharing challenging issues
arise for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders at the
inter-organizational level. Moreover, on the intra-organizational level, the
scarce financial resources for healthcare technologies are competed on. This
study adopts an interpretative stakeholder analysis to capture the diversity
and complexity of the task ahead.
Van Offenbeek, Propose behavior-oriented framework. Discusses the different roles of
Boonstra & Seo stakeholders towards acceptance and resistance. Former IS literatures only
(2013) defines between users and non-users while there is also a difference between
accepting/resisting users/non-users. TAM = too narrow.
6 Guest Lecture: TREAT Damschroder et Damschroder et al. (2009) defined a model for the implementation of
(Lucas Roebroek) al. (2009) healthcare innovations: the consolidated framework for implementation
research (CFIR). This CFIR comprises common constructs from published
implementation tools. It offers an overarching typology, a list of constructs to
C Innovation implementation promote theory development and verification about what works where and
frameworks (for healthcare why across multiple contexts.
innovation) Greenhalgh et al. This study has two parallel components, i.e., secondary research to identify
(2017) key domains, and empirical case studies of tech implementation to explore,
test, and refine the domains. With these components, the researchers
developed the NASSS framework (non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up,
spread, and sustainability), showing promise when applied to other programs.
Grol, Bosch & Both CFIR and NASSS are a framework, and not an implementation strategy.
Wensing (2013) Greenhalgh et al. (2017) argue that implementation strategies cannot be
standardized and therefore not exist. Grol, Bosch and Wensing (2013) argue
otherwise: there are explorative and theory-based methods
7 Nolte (2018) Nolte (2018) wrote a policy brief to develop key messages to support
evidence-informed policymaking. Key issues include the rising burden of
chronic health programs, multi-morbidity, and a changing demand imposing
strain on already stretched systems. In this paper, the “makes or breaks” of an
