Technology identity: the role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices.

This study explored the sociotechnical influences shaping the naturally-occurring adoption and non-adoption of device technologies in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), amid increasing policy interest in this area. The study was informed by Science and Technology Studies and structuration and Actor Network Theory perspectives, drawing attention to the performative capacities of the technology alongside human agentic forces such as agendas and expectations, in the context of structural and macro conditions. Eight technologies were studied using a comparative ethnographic case study design and purposive and snowball sampling to identify relevant NHS, academic and industry participants. Data were collected between May 2009 and February 2012, included in-depth interviews, conference observations and printed and web-based documents and were analysed using constructivist grounded theory methods. The study suggests that while adoption decisions are made within the jurisdiction of healthcare organisations, they are shaped within a dynamic and fluid 'adoption space' that transcends organisational and geographic boundaries. Diverse influences from the industry, health care organisation and practice, health technology assessment and policy interact to produce 'technology identities.' Technology identities are composite and contested attributes that encompass different aspects of the technology (novelty, effectiveness, utility, risks, requirements) and that give a distinctive character to each. We argue that it is these socially constructed and contingent heuristic identities that shape the desirability, acceptability, feasibility and adoptability of each technology, a perspective that policy must acknowledge in seeking to intervene in health care technology adoption.

[1]  S. Murray Experiences with “rapid appraisal” in primary care: involving the public in assessing health needs, orientating staff, and educating medical students , 1999, BMJ.

[2]  S. Hyysalo Representations of Use and Practice-Bound Imaginaries in Automating the Safety of the Elderly , 2006 .

[3]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[4]  S. Barley Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[5]  Karen A. Cerulo IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION: New Issues, New Directions , 1997 .

[6]  D. Wanless Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View. Conclusions and recommendations , 2002 .

[7]  E. Ferlie,et al.  Interlocking Interactions, the Diffusion of Innovations in Health Care , 2002 .

[8]  R. Perera,et al.  Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[9]  T. Schlich Surgery, Science and Industry: A Revolution in Fracture Care, 1950s-1990s , 2002 .

[10]  Dana Goldman,et al.  Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA. , 2010, Health economics.

[11]  N. Brown,et al.  Capitalizing hope: the commercial development of umbilical cord blood stem cell banking , 2008 .

[12]  The influence of NICE guidance on the uptake of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. , 2009, Journal of public health.

[13]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[14]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Innovation and regulation in human implant technologies: developing comparative approaches. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[15]  Mike Michael,et al.  Prepublication Copy of , 2009 .

[16]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  The adoption space of early-emerging technologies: evaluation, innovation, gatekeeping (Pathways to Adoption of Technologies in Healthcare - PATH) , 2013 .

[17]  Marc Berg,et al.  The practice of medical technology. , 2003, Sociology of health & illness.

[18]  G. Robert,et al.  Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: A systematic review , 2010, Journal of health services research & policy.

[19]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[20]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[21]  Michael Drummond,et al.  Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[22]  J. Harris The Ordering of Things: Organization in Bruno Latour , 2005 .

[23]  D. Hughes,et al.  Deliberating Tarceva: A case study of how British NHS managers decide whether to purchase a high-cost drug in the shadow of NICE guidance. , 2011, Social science & medicine.

[24]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[25]  B. Campbell How to judge the value of innovation , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  T. Walley,et al.  Introducing new health interventions , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[28]  K. Ellenbogen,et al.  The management of atrial fibrillation. , 1996, The American journal of medicine.

[29]  N. Fox Boundary Objects, Social Meanings and the Success of New Technologies , 2011 .

[30]  B. Latour Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[31]  T. Horlick-Jones,et al.  On the Signature of New Technologies: Materiality, Sociality and Practical Reasoning , 2007 .

[32]  Jeannette Pols,et al.  Innovation and evaluation: taming and unleashing telecare technology. , 2011, Sociology of health & illness.

[33]  H. Klein,et al.  The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations , 2002 .

[34]  W. Bijker How is Technology Made?-That is the Question! , 2010 .

[35]  C. May,et al.  Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory , 2009 .

[36]  G. Symon Developing the Political Perspective on Technological Change Through Rhetorical Analysis , 2008 .

[37]  Nick Black,et al.  The Cooksey review of UK health research funding , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1989 .

[39]  Rolf Wynn,et al.  Characteristics of successfully implemented telemedical applications , 2007, Implementation science : IS.

[40]  D. MacKenzie,et al.  The social shaping of technology : how the refrigerator got its hum , 1985 .

[41]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[42]  Stuart S. Blume,et al.  Insight and Industry: On the dynamics of technological change in Medicine Cambridge , 1991 .

[43]  Mads Borup,et al.  The sociology of expectations in science and technology , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[44]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Arduous implementation: Does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice , 2008, Implementation science : IS.

[45]  Nicky Britten,et al.  Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: Online marketing of nutrigenetic tests , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[46]  M. Alvesson,et al.  Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual , 2002 .

[47]  I. Hutchby Technologies, Texts and Affordances , 2001 .