Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exploitation of University-Based Healthcare Innovations: The Behaviors of Three Key Actors and Influencing Factors
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Women's and Children's Health.
2017 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Large resources are invested in healthcare research, but despite this there is a wide gap between research knowledge and healthcare practice. Implementation researchers have addressed this gap, focusing mostly on the role of healthcare practitioners. However, a narrow focus on implementation does not take into consideration the preceding stages and the roles of different actors during the whole innovation process, which starts from research and ends with implementation. The aim of this thesis is to examine the behaviors of three key actors during an innovation process and to explore the influence of selected contextual factors on their behavior.

Study I (n=10 funders) identifies several facilitative roles for funders and suggests that implementation risks becoming no one’s responsibility as the funders identify six different actors responsible for implementation, the majority of whom embody a collective or an organization. Study II finds that the implementation knowledge of Swedish funding managers (n=18) is mostly based on experience-based knowledge. The majority of the funding managers define implementation as a process and express limited knowledge of implementation. The findings of Study III (n=4 innovation cases) show that the roles and involvement of academic inventors and ISAs (innovation-supporting actors) are more connected to intellectual property (IP) nature than to intellectual property rights (IPR) ownership. Study IV (n=4 innovation cases) identifies three different logics that influence the behavior of academic inventors: market, academic and care logics. A pattern emerges where the behavior of academic inventors is guided by a unique logic and there is no interaction between logics, despite the existence of multiple logics. The individual strategies to handle multiple logics coincide with the influence of logics. In addition, IP nature, distinguishing between high-tech and low-tech innovations, is connected to the influence of institutional logics: low-tech connected to the care logic and high-tech connected to the market logic.

This thesis has three main theoretical and practical implications relevant for practitioners, policymakers and researchers. First, implementation responsibility is an important issue to study and discuss, because without clearly defined responsibilities and management of responsibilities, responsibility might become no one’s responsibility. Second, the finding that experience-based implementation knowledge contributes heavily to policymakers’ knowledge encourages further studies and discussions regarding this relatively neglected issue. Third, the importance of IP nature in shaping innovation processes should be considered and further examined, not only as a factor influencing inventors and ISAs’ roles and involvement, but also as influencing the prevalence of different institutional logics. Further, the relevance of a distinction between low-tech and high-tech IP should be reflected on.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2017. , p. 80
Series
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine, ISSN 1651-6206 ; 1326
Keywords [en]
implementation responsibility, research funder, implementation knowledge, commercialization of science, university ownership, inventor ownership, institutional logics, medical technology
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317934ISBN: 978-91-554-9892-4 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-317934DiVA, id: diva2:1083773
Public defence
2017-06-01, Auditorium Minus, Museum Gustavianum, Akademigatan 3, Uppsala, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2017-05-11 Created: 2017-03-22 Last updated: 2017-05-23
List of papers
1. Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
2015 (English)In: Implementation Science, ISSN 1748-5908, E-ISSN 1748-5908, Vol. 10, article id 100Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation.

Findings

Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation.

Conclusions

The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility. 

Keywords
Quality improvemen, Implementation responsibility, Support of research, Research funder roles
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy Engineering and Technology
Research subject
Health Care Research; Engineering Science with specialization in industrial engineering and management
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-260115 (URN)10.1186/s13012-015-0290-5 (DOI)000358032100002 ()26183210 (PubMedID)
Projects
U-CARE
Funder
U‐Care: Better Psychosocial Care at Lower Cost? Evidence-based assessment and Psychosocial Care via Internet, a Swedish Example
Available from: 2015-08-17 Created: 2015-08-17 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
2. A Qualitative Exploration of Research Funding Managers’ Implementation Knowledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Qualitative Exploration of Research Funding Managers’ Implementation Knowledge
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317932 (URN)
Available from: 2017-03-22 Created: 2017-03-22 Last updated: 2017-03-22
3. The roles and involvement of academic inventors and innovation supporting actors in university-based innovation processes: The influence of IPR ownership and IP nature
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The roles and involvement of academic inventors and innovation supporting actors in university-based innovation processes: The influence of IPR ownership and IP nature
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-262346 (URN)
Available from: 2015-09-14 Created: 2015-09-14 Last updated: 2017-03-22
4. Unique Logics despite Institutional Complexity: An Inductive Study of Academic Inventors and Institutional Logics
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Unique Logics despite Institutional Complexity: An Inductive Study of Academic Inventors and Institutional Logics
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317933 (URN)
Available from: 2017-03-22 Created: 2017-03-22 Last updated: 2017-03-22

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(837 kB)98 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 837 kBChecksum SHA-512
a3ba1843d6988dac5de17880e7f7d41632a8bf27b679c2328848bfe396452cdad6ef85e14b332cb4fa7c461d49ff76bb3c3d546e830d4fc4a9741c9e8e22b059
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf
Buy this publication >>

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brantnell, Anders
By organisation
Department of Women's and Children's Health
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 98 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 858 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf