Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes : Empirical application of the NASSS framework

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Failures and partial successes are common in technology-supported innovation programmes in health and social care. Complexity theory can help explain why. Phenomena may be simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues) or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). The recently published NASSS framework applies this taxonomy to explain Non-adoption or Abandonment of technology by individuals and difficulties achieving Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability. This paper reports the first empirical application of the NASSS framework. Methods: Six technology-supported programmes were studied using ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across 20 health and care organisations and 10 national-level bodies. They comprised video outpatient consultations, GPS tracking technology for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organising software and integrated case management via data warehousing. Data were collected at three levels: micro (individual technology users), meso (organisational processes and systems) and macro (national policy and wider context). Data analysis and synthesis were guided by socio-technical theories and organised around the seven NASSS domains: (1) the condition or illness, (2) the technology, (3) the value proposition, (4) the adopter system (professional staff, patients and lay carers), (5) the organisation(s), (6) the wider (institutional and societal) system and (7) interaction and mutual adaptation among all these domains over time. Results: The study generated more than 400 h of ethnographic observation, 165 semi-structured interviews and 200 documents. The six case studies raised multiple challenges across all seven domains. Complexity was a common feature of all programmes. In particular, individuals' health and care needs were often complex and hence unpredictable and 'off algorithm'. Programmes in which multiple domains were complicated proved difficult, slow and expensive to implement. Those in which multiple domains were complex did not become mainstreamed (or, if mainstreamed, did not deliver key intended outputs). Conclusion: The NASSS framework helped explain the successes, failures and changing fortunes of this diverse sample of technology-supported programmes. Since failure is often linked to complexity across multiple NASSS domains, further research should systematically address ways to reduce complexity and/or manage programme implementation to take account of it.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorising and evaluating Non-adoption, Abandonment and challenges to Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) of health and care technologies

© 2017 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.Background: Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level. Objective: Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. Methods: The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback. Results: The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs.Peer reviewe

“It's no good but at least I've always got it round my neck”: A postphenomenological analysis of reassurance in assistive technology use by older people

© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is the accepted manuscript version of an article which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114553The provision of reassurance is seen as a goal and benefit of the use of assistive technology (AT) in supporting people to manage their health and care needs at a distance. Conceptually, reassurance in health and care settings remains under-theorised with the benefits of experiencing reassurance through technology use assumed rather than understood. UK health and social care service goals of managing safety and risk have largely been equated with providing reassurance to users of AT and their carers. What has not been explored is how reassurance is experienced variably by users of different types of technology-enabled care. We present data from 3 case studies of different technologies in use in health and social care provision, analysed through a postphenomenology and sociomaterial lens. Our findings point to reassurance as an important facet of AT provision but the intended functions and uses of technological devices alone did not account for people's experiences of reassurance. Participant narratives referred variously to the comfort of being monitored, having their illness/wellness verified by the device, feeling reassured by the promise of help if needed, and imbuing the device with symbolic meaning (when the user associated the device with meanings and functions other than its technical capabilities). The different ways in which reassurance was experienced provides a useful way of understanding the potential tensions with AT policy goals as well as the positive meaning attributed to devices in some cases. This study reaffirms the importance of AT implementation being anchored in what matters to the user.Peer reviewe

Antihypertensive Treatment Evaluation in Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy Trial (ATEMPT): A decentralised open-label pilot trial

BACKGROUND: Older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy have been under-represented in clinical trials. We aimed to assess the effect of different intensities of antihypertensive treatment on changes in blood pressure, major safety outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes in this population.METHODS: ATEMPT was a decentralised, two-armed, parallel-group, open-label randomised controlled pilot trial conducted in the Thames Valley area, South East England. Individuals aged 65 years or older with multimorbidity (three or more chronic conditions) or polypharmacy (five or more types of medications) and a systolic blood pressure of 115-165 mm Hg were eligible for inclusion. Participants were identified through a search of national hospital discharge databases, identification of patients registered with an online pharmacy, and via targeted advertising on social media platforms. Participants were randomly assigned to receive up to two more classes versus up to two fewer classes of antihypertensive medications. Apart from routine home visits for conducting the baseline assessment, all communication, monitoring, and management of participants by the trial team was conducted remotely. The primary outcome was change in home-measured blood pressure.FINDINGS: Between Dec 15, 2020, and Aug 31, 2022, 230 participants were randomly assigned (n=126 to more vs n=104 to fewer antihypertensive medications). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar across both groups; no cardiovascular events occurred in the more antihypertensive drugs group, compared with six in the fewer antihypertensive drugs group, of which two were fatal. Over a 13-month follow-up period, the mean systolic blood pressure in the group allocated to receive more antihypertensive medications decreased from 134·5 mm Hg (SD 10·7) at baseline to 122·1 mm Hg (10·5). By contrast, in the group allocated to receive fewer antihypertensive medications, it remained relatively unchanged, moving from 134·8 mm Hg (SD 11·2) at baseline to 132·9 mm Hg (15·3); this corresponded to a mean difference of -10·7 mm Hg (95% CI -17·5 to -4·0).INTERPRETATION: Remotely delivered antihypertensive treatment substantially reduced systolic blood pressure in older adults who are often less represented in trials, with no increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The results of this trial will inform a larger clinical trial focusing on assessing major cardiovascular events, safety, physical functioning, and cognitive function that is currently in the planning stages. These results also underscore the efficiency of decentralised trial designs, which might be of broader interest in other settings.FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Oxford Martin School.</p

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes