The barriers to govern long-term care innovations:

Cramer, Hendrik; Dewulf, Geert P.M.R.; Voordijk, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.02.008

Cited by 5 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of the lack of shared understanding occurred between two ministries over the sustainment of funding (e.g. Cramer, Dewulf, and Voordijk 2014), between a city and sub-municipality about the location of a novel water plaza in Rotterdam (e.g. Biesbroek et al 2014) and between health agencies about goal consensus of a new health program in Florida (e.g.…”

Section: Public Sector Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process

Cinar¹,

Trott²,

Simms

2018

Public Management Review

221

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a systematic review of the empirical literature on barriers within public sector innovation processes, based on data from 63 articles. We investigate the nature of barriers. The studies were analysed based on four dimensions of barriers: i) their classification; ii) their interrelations; iii) whether they play distinct roles within stages of innovation process and iv) whether they vary in the types of innovations. We develop an empirically based framework to capture the complex nature of barriers. For this purpose, a new classification is also introduced to show that interaction-specific barriers emerge during the collaborative innovation process. Significantly we identify that the nature of barriers are more complex than has previously been recognized: they differ in process stages and innovation types. Moreover, they show interrelations across the innovation process by reinforcing each other. The findings show there is an emphasis on organizational barriers and implementation phase studies. We conclude with a discussion on how future research use quantitative and cross-national methods to examine: (1) interaction specific barriers, in particular, barriers with businesses and political bodies (2) design and sustainment phases of innovation (3) interrelations between barriers. 4 the concept of innovation in a normative positive way. Similarly, we do not approach the concept of barriers in a normative negative way. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The first section details the methodology used for the systematic review. The second section and its subsections detail the results of the systematic review, initially providing details of the studies included and subsequently exploring the nature of barriers by examining their types, process characteristics, interrelations, and distinct variations on types of innovation. Finally, from our findings, we reach conclusions and provide a research agenda on barriers to PSI. METHODOLOGY Database Search Three strategies were used to identify eligible articles. First, we carried out an electronic search in Web of Science restricted to Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in title, abstract and keywords of articles. The term [innov*] was searched along with the terms for barriers: [obstacle* OR barrier* OR challeng* OR hinder* OR deter* OR difficult* OR bottleneck* OR problem* OR setback* OR hurdle* OR hamper* OR imped* OR obstruct*]. To define the public sector character of innovation we use the following terms: [municipal* OR "public administrat*" OR "public organi$ation*" OR "public management" OR government* OR "public service" OR "local government*" OR "e-govern*" OR "egovern* OR governance OR "public sphere" OR "public sector"]. Public or policy entrepreneurship has been studied connected with innovation (Roberts and King 1996) and so we searched the terms for barriers and public sector with the combination of [entrepreneur*]. This strategy resulted in a total of 3,524 articles. Second we selected EBSCO Business Source database ...

show abstract

Section: Public Sector Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only study exploring this phase in depth was in the Netherlands. Cramer, Dewulf, and Voordijk (2014) investigated 26 subsidised projects by ministries for health innovations. The ending of funding after three years hindered each of these innovative projects.…”

Section: Sustainmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process

Cinar¹,

Trott²,

Simms

2018

Public Management Review

221

188

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, literature is sparse on scaling up long-term care innovations in developed healthcare systems [32]. A 2016 study by Nolte et al [4], examining three pilots in integrated care delivery, focussing on their development, implementation and sustainability including how they impacted the wider system context.…”

Section: Theory and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Instrument to Measure Maturity of Integrated Care: A First Validation Study

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Lessons captured from interviews with 12 European regions are represented in a new instrument, the B3-Maturity Model (B3-MM). B3-MM aims to assess maturity along 12 dimensions reflecting the various aspects that need to be managed in order to deliver integrated care. The objective of the study was to test the content validity of B3-MM as part of SCIROCCO (Scaling Integrated Care into Context), a European Union funded project.Methods:A literature review was conducted to compare B3-MM’s 12 dimensions and their measurement scales with existing measures and instruments that focus on assessing the development of integrated care. Subsequently, a three-round survey conducted through a Delphi study with international experts in the field of integrated care was performed to test the relevance of: 1) the dimensions, 2) the maturity indicators and 3) the assessment scale used in B3-MM.Results:The 11 articles included in the literature review confirmed all the dimensions described in the original version of B3-MM. The Delphi study rounds resulted in various phrasing amendments of indicators and assessment scale. Full agreement among the experts on the relevance of the 12 B3-MM dimensions, their indicators, and assessment scale was reached after the third Delphi round.Conclusion and discussion:The B3-MM dimensions, maturity indicators and assessment scale showed satisfactory content validity. While the B3-MM is a unique instrument based on existing knowledge and experiences of regions in integrated care, further testing is needed to explore other measurement properties of B3-MM.

show abstract

“…So far, this perspective has received limited attention in the transitions literature . It is important to realize that niches are not only placed outside of systems, but also outside organizational structures (Cramer et al, 2014). By this means, niches are located in a space that is protected from both, the system and organizational structures (Cramer et al, 2014).…”

Section: The Organizational Perspective On Transitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to realize that niches are not only placed outside of systems, but also outside organizational structures (Cramer et al, 2014). By this means, niches are located in a space that is protected from both, the system and organizational structures (Cramer et al, 2014). Form an organizational perspective, this also means that the niche can be seen as part of the external environment.…”

Section: The Organizational Perspective On Transitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The barriers to empowering niche-innovations in long-term care

Cramer¹

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrefaceWith this preface, I first introduce how this thesis came into being. Secondly, I acknowledge the people who supported and influenced me during the four years of my research on niche-innovations.A bit more than four years ago, a day before I defended my master thesis on corporate diversification strategies at Tilburg University, I received an e-mail from my supervisor asking me if I would be interested in doing a PhD at the University of Twente. Five days later, it was December 23 rd 2009, a day before Christmas, Iwas sitting in Geert Dewulf's office, talking about the PhD trajectory for two and a half hours. The research project was about developing strategies in a nicheinnovation project that primarily concerned the cooperation of two long-term care organizations. It was subsidized by a transition program that aimed at changing the long-term care system. I was very interested in the topic as I saw a good opportunity to continue my research on strategy development. Yet in a new domain: long-term care. As it felt like the right time, the right place and the right people, I started my research in January 2010. Initially, being a fresh graduate who was boosted with pure confidence, I was keen to support the strategy development in the project. Throughout the four years, however, I learned that there are all kinds of barriers hindering the development of strategies for niche-innovations which show that the long-term care system has not been ready for change.While the project was running smoothly throughout 2010, it abruptly ended shortly after the subsidy ended in 2011. Hence, I had to look for other cases to develop strategies out of niche-innovations. I wrote a proposal that outlined how the lessons learned in the original project could be used in a new project. One of the participating long-term care organizations of the original project accepted the proposal in 2012. I started conducting interviews as well as holding a workshop to form new strategies out of niche-innovations. But half a year later, the project was cancelled due to an organizational restructuring. I was asked to use the insights in the previous project to re-write the proposal in order to develop integrated longterm care strategies. In 2013, I conducted another 20 interviews. But also this project was cancelled after my key contact person was fired. In the meantime, I integrated my ideas about strategy development in a proposal that we (Geert Dewulf, Hans Voordijk and I) wrote with researchers from Germany and Norway for the Framework Programme 7 (FP7) of the European Union. Unfortunately, our proposal scored just below the threshold. As a consequence of all these drawbacks, vi I started to refocus my research to highlight the importance of understanding the barriers to change so that future programs can enable the change of the long-term care system. In so doing, I used the data of the original project, and data from a retrospective study on two other niche-innovation projects that also participated in the transition program.Writing a th...

show abstract

The barriers to govern long-term care innovations:

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process

A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process

An Instrument to Measure Maturity of Integrated Care: A First Validation Study

The barriers to empowering niche-innovations in long-term care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About