Cited by 3Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

AI adoption in healthcare organizations: Spheres of development and the virtue of visible value

Open access
Duus, Rikke, Cooray, Mike, Lilley, Simon·2026·Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Abstract

Despite the significant potential of artificial intelligence (AI), many public healthcare organizations struggle to adopt this technology. Simultaneously, empirical research on the factors that influence AI adoption in public healthcare settings remains scarce. We address this gap with a qualitative study with senior healthcare leaders who hold responsibility for the adoption and development of AI-enabled solutions within two leading National Healthcare Service (NHS) Trusts in the United Kingdom. Drawing upon the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework to make sense of our findings, we reveal nine factors that influence AI adoption. Significantly, we buttress our use of the TOE framework by highlighting how each TOE context can evolve into a sphere of AI development and explore the positively mediating role of a meta-factor that we term ‘visible value’ in that process. Visible value can be explained as the demonstrated or executed positive impact relating to AI adoption activities, where the value can be vividly seen, experienced, agreed upon and, ideally, measured, and helps to drive momentum internally and/or with key external stakeholders. Generation of visible value helps to legitimize and build confidence in continued AI activities. We thus develop existing theoretical resources to advance practical understanding of AI adoption in public healthcare organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124541

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Anandaciva, 2024, The spring budget 2024: what does it mean for health and care services?, The King’s Fund
  2. Gainsbury, 2024, How much more money does the NHS need?, Nuffield Trust.
  3. Lawal, 2025, Why strategy beats speed in introducing AI for healthcare, World Econ. Forum
  4. Lovich, 2024, How gen AI can make work more fulfilling, Harv. Bus. Rev.
  5. Majchrzak, 2012, Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS), vol. 2, 832
  6. Mallorie, 2024, NHS workforce in a nutshell, The King’s Fund
  7. Mallorie, 2024, Staff shortages: what’s behind the headlines?, The King’s Fund
  8. Schiavone, 2025, Innovating responsibly: exploring digital transformation and open innovation strategies, JIE&M., 2, 47
  9. Smith, 1937, Vol. 11937

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Duus, R., Cooray, M., & Lilley, S.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Hult International Business School (GB)
  • University of Lincoln (GB)
Corresponding author
Duus, Rikke
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-05
Volume
226
Pages
124541
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7128427326
Cited by
3
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Technological Forecasting and Social Change (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
artificial intelligence adoption, public healthcare organizations, National Health Service, technology-organization-environment framework, healthcare leadership, stakeholder confidence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review