The dynamics of IT adoption in a major change process in healthcare delivery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the study is to comprehend the dynamics of interactions between partners (caregivers, promoters, consultants, patients and managers) involved in the implementation process of an integrated delivery system designed to support the treatment of women with breast cancer. Preliminary findings permit to identify adoption/resistance factors at individual, professional and organizational levels in addition to technological factors. They give insights on the challenges to be faced when redesigning work processes in an interorganizational setting. Significant adoption factors include individual participation to the project and positive assessment of benefits of the system by individuals as well as by professional groups. On the other hand, the absence of a multidisciplinary committee and the complexity of the environment, the tasks and the technology are among the factors identified as troublesome. In terms of the dynamics of the process, our observation reveals that promoters have adopted a contingent and political approach. While this strategy is usually considered appropriate in healthcare organizations, information generated by this study has allowed for a better understanding of important factors and mechanisms to consider and address in the subsequent phases of implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it