Theoretical review of frame research and future directions from a network perspective

The landscape of frame research within social sciences is characterized by a rather loose and scattered concept, resulting in various characteristics and functions attributed to frames, and by diverging conceptualizations on the origin and diffusion of frames. Although reviews have been conducted to facilitate an overview on the definitions, types, characteristics and functions of frames, a review on the conceptualizations on the origin and diffusion of frames remains outstanding. This is considered relevant, since the scope of a frame can only be determined once we understand where a frame initially emerged, where it becomes manifest and its’ underlying power structures shaping the diffusion. The primary aim of this article is to review the conceptual foundations of frame research, on frames’ origin and diffusion. Building on this review, this article aims at advancing the theoretical underpinning on frames’ origin and diffusion, by elaborating contributions of network theory. A theoretical review has been conducted on the databases ProQuest, EBSCOhost and ScienceDirect. 2805 articles were assessed, 164 articles were reviewed on full text and 75 articles were selected. The conceptualizations of frames range from individual and subjective frames to organizational and culturally induced frames, as well as collectively evolved frames. The elaboration of frames’ origin and diffusion reflect these conceptualizations. Most of the articles imply a top-down diffusion of frames. As an analytical complement, a network approach regarding the origin and diffusion of frames is introduced, putting the individual and its’ network in the center of frames’ origin and diffusion. Further, this article proposes a process-sociological perspective, based on network analysis, for conceiving, and assessing frames. This has implications for conceptualizing the origin and diffusion of frames, and the recognition of power relationships shaping this process

A Constructivist Frame Analysis on Beliefs and Social Influences Shaping the Acceptance of Shared Decision-Making in Perioperative Care for Elderly and Frail Patients

What predicts the acceptance of social innovation (SI), novel ideas, processes, and practices? This is the core question pursued in this thesis. And it is a fundamental issue within the SI literature, dealing with “new social practices created from collective, intentional, and goal-oriented actions” (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014, p. 44), which are intended to respond to individual and collective social needs (Abad & Ezponda, 2022; Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Grimm et al., 2013; van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016). Research on innovation acceptance is characterized by a vast landscape of theories, concepts, and models. These consider various factors relating to innovation characteristics, social, organizational and individual factors, which are assumed to shape the process of the innovation decision-making (Kim & Chung, 2017). But what is at the core determining whether novelty emerges and becomes applied? A look at the field of future studies, which I used to pursue, provides an intriguing notion: Research on futures primarily refers to the exploration and discussion of possible, desirable, and probable futures. The common ground of these categories aims at the capacity to attach novel ideas to the individuals involved – to their attitudes, believes and opinions on the nature, desired state, and potential evolution of the subject at hand. Novel ideas are thus linked to the ability of the individuals concerned to recognize and accept this novelty and to create room for it to unfold. In this sense, novelty is always linked to the present, thoughts, believes and conceptions of reality by individuals. The literature on innovation research echoes this perspective, emphasizing the need to take individuals’ characteristics for exploring and predicting the process of an innovation and its’ acceptance by concerned stakeholders into account (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Kim & Chung, 2017; van Oorschot et al., 2018). Key models that have had significant influence on subsequent research include Rogers’ (2003) innovation-diffusion model, Triandis’ (1977) model of choice, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991; Ajzen & Madden, 1986). These offer a wide range of overarching issues and detailed factors shaping how individuals approach innovation processes and their acceptance (Dedehayir et al., 2017; Kim & Chung, 2017; Lewis et al., 2003; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011). Although these insights were drawn mainly on technological practice and innovations, the findings also shape research on SI (Demirel & Payne, 2018; Małecka et al., 2022; Oeij et al., 2019). 2 Research on innovation acceptance remains dominated by these models (Dedehayir et al., 2017; Kim & Chung, 2017; Lewis et al., 2003; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2015). Building on these studies, a wide variety of studies examine contextual adaptations and extensions. Among others, these consider the relation between organization and individual (Pak et al., 2019) and individuals’ emotions (Choi et al., 2011; Raffaelli et al., 2019). Further, issues like trust (Gefen et al., 2003; Małecka et al., 2022), perception of risk (Arruda Filho et al., 2022), culture (Srite & Karahanna, 2006), and the role of peers (Demirel & Payne, 2018; Małecka et al., 2022) are being explored. However, the majority of these studies relate to technological innovations, calling into consideration their applicability to SI

Shared decision-making: A vehicle for participation and individualized clinical care pathways? A Scoping review on patients’ and physicians’ perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in the clinical sett

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered to be a promising approach to enable person-centredness and tailored treatment pathways, according to persons’ individual needs. Foremost, this concerns frail and elderly patients, who suffer from multiple health issues and increased vulnerability, requiring individualized healthcare. SDM and person-centred projects are being conducted and policy and regulatory settings are being implemented worldwide. However, little is known about facilitators and barriers for implementing SDM into clinical practice for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Objective And Method: We aim to gain a comprehensive overview over original studies on perceived facilitators and barriers for the adoption of shared decision-making within the clinical setting by elderly and frail patients and clinical physicians. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting and understanding facilitators and barriers addressed by elderly and frail patients and clinical physicians. Second, we aim at understanding the underlying approaches and methods employed in respective studies. We conducted a scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Based on the databases PubMed, Medline and CINAHL, we identified and reviewed 11 articles. Results: For the first research question, the articles indicate that patients want to participate in decision-making, fostering autonomy; while communication barriers, asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical physicians and a lack of patients’ health literacy remain crucial barriers. For the second research question, quantitative and qualitative studies are equally applied. Second, research on perceived facilitators and barriers for the adoption of shared decision-making within the clinical setting by elderly and frail patients and clinical physicians are almost exclusively conducted after participation in a SDM consultation. Third, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles are primarily concerned with the collection of determinants that enable or impede the implementation and adoption SDM, without employing a distinct theoretical framework for explaining these determinants and assessing underlying relationships. Forth, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews. Conclusion: Overall, we identified only a limited number of articles addressing patient and clinical physician perceptions on facilitators and barriers for SDM. These findings further imply that SDM research concerning elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporate theory-based qualitative analysis, patient and clinician development of SDM perceptions (before and after SDM consultation), and observations of SDM consultations. Observations are particularly relevant as these remain as a black box. Implications: We suggest conducting a qualitative study that examines facilitators and barriers of clinical physicians and patients both prior to and post to SDM consultation, in combination with a non-participatory observation of actual SDM consultations. The observation of practice is indispensable to enable a thorough understanding of SDM and its’ application

Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers. Methods The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies. Results Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients’ willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent. Conclusion Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted. Trial registration https://osf.io/8fjnb

A longitudinal case study on business model innovation for improving care in complex neurological diseases

Multi-sided platforms in healthcare often focus their business model on standardizing care for wide-spread, chronic diseases. However, there is a lack of knowledge surrounding platform business models enabling individualized care coordination for patients with rare diseases. This paper analyses the development of a complex platform business model addressing Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a severe neurological disease that requires the coordination of a diverse network of medical specialists, care, and equipment providers. A longitudinal case study examines the platform’s development, focusing subsequently on qualitative and efficient care coordination, care research, and active and direct involvement of patients, as well as establishing two business models, namely, care coordination and care research. We reconstruct how these complex platform business models were configured to improve patient care and care research, thereby creating immediate value for patients and insights for long-term care improvements. The ongoing platform development carefully balances value generation for diverse stakeholders and economic sustainability