Readiness for Change in the Implementation of a 3D Printing Initiative in a Catalan Tertiary Hospital Using the Normalization Process Theory: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high failure rate of innovation projects motivates us to understand the perceptions about resistances and barriers of the main stakeholders to improving success rates. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the readiness for change in the implementation of a 3D printing project in a Catalan tertiary hospital prior to its implementation. METHODS: We used a web-based, voluntary, and anonymous survey using the Normalization Measurement Development questionnaire (NoMAD) to gather views and perceptions from a selected group of health care professionals at Germans Trias i Pujol University Hospital. RESULTS: In this study, 58 professionals, including heads of service (n=30, 51%), doctors (n=18, 31%), nurses (n=7, 12%), and support staff (n=3, 5%), responded to the questionnaire. All groups saw the value of the project and were willing to enroll and support it. Respondents reported the highest scores (out of 5) in cognitive participation (mean 4.45, SD 0.04), coherence (mean 3.72, SD 0.13), and reflective monitoring (mean 3.80, SD 0.25). The weakest score was in collective action (mean 3.52, SD 0.12). There were no statistically significant differences in scores among professions in the survey. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D printing project implementation should pay attention to preparing, defining, sharing, and supporting the operational work involved in its use and implementation. It should also understand, assess, and communicate the ways in which the new set of practices can affect the users and others around them. We suggest that health officers and politicians consider this experience as a solid ground toward the development of a more efficient health innovation system and as a catalyst for transformation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".