Cited by 232Information Systems Theories and ImplementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

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

Open access
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Wherton, Joe, Papoutsi, Chrysanthi, Lynch, Jenni, Hughes, Gemma, A’Court, Christine, Hinder, Sue, Procter, Rob +1 more·2018·BMC Medicine

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-018-1050-6

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The NASSS framework was developed in the United Kingdom, and several included studies were part of the initial empirical testing and refinement of the NASSS domains.

    “However, it is noteworthy that the NASSS framework was developed in the United Kingdom, and several included studies were part of the initial empirical testing and refinement of the NASSS domains [25].”
  • The intricate nature of the implementation under examination in the included studies could be explained by the framework's underlying assumption that, in complex situations, the NASSS domains interact with one another and are interdependent.

    “This observation may indicate the intricate nature of the implementation under examination in the included studies, which could be explained by the framework’s underlying assumption that, in complex situations, the NASSS domains interact with one another and are interdependent [25].”
  • When interdependencies among the NASSS domains exist, it often leads to the inability to address a singular issue without inadvertently giving rise to new challenges in other domains.

    “In other words, when interdependencies among the domains exist, it often leads to the inability to address a singular issue without inadvertently giving rise to new challenges in other domains of the NASSS [25].”
  • The NASSS framework has been widely used across a range of settings for evaluating and explaining the fortunes of various kinds of health technology projects and draws on complexity theory.

    “The NASSS framework has been widely used across a range of settings for evaluating and explaining the fortunes of various kinds of health technology projects [see for example (18–20)] and draws on complexity theory (21).”
  • The few detailed real-world studies suggest that efforts to implement remote consultation services even without an ongoing pandemic are logistically complex, resource-intensive and often stymied by technical and regulatory challenges.

    “The few detailed real-world studies in the literature suggest that efforts to implement remote consultation services even without an ongoing pandemic are logistically complex, resource-intensive and often stymied by technical and regulatory challenges (18, 26, 27, 115, 117, 118)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [26]Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R: Minding the gaps: creating resilience in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches. Vol. 3. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. 21249930
  2. [38]Shaw S, Wherton J, Vijayaraghavan S, Morris J, Bhattacharya S, Hanson P, Campbell-Richards D, Ramoutar S, Collard A, Hodkinson I et al: Virtual online consultations: advantages and limitations (VOCAL). A mixed-method study at micro, meso and macro level. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017. In press.
  3. [41]Procter R Greenhalgh T Wherton J Sugarhood P Rouncefield M Hinder S The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place Comput Supported Coop Work 2014 23 3 245 267 10.1007/s10606-014-9202-5 PMC4551166 26321795 · DOI
  4. [47]Anonymous Press release: New GP app could lead to patients being ‘cherry picked’ and create ‘twin track’ general practice, warns RCGP 2017 London Royal College of General Practitioners
  5. [58]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Health Technologies Adoption Programme Health Technologies Adoption Programme: process guide for adoption support resources for health technologies. Processes and Methods Series PMG 23 2015 London NICE 28481482
  6. [59]Wittgenstein L Philosophical investigations (Manuscript, 1945–1949). Transl. from Philosophische Untersuchungen. Transl. by GEM Anscombe 1958 Oxford Basil Blackwell Publishers

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A’Court, C., Hinder, S., Procter, R., & Shaw, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • RAFT (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Greenhalgh, Trisha
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2018-05-14
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
66-66
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804955212
Cited by
232
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
50.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA)
  • Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (13/59/26)
  • Programme Development Grants (RP-DG-1213-10003)
  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR- BRC-1215-20008)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
NASSS framework, complexity theory, technology adoption, health and social care, implementation failure, socio-technical systems, heart failure, integrated case management, data warehousing
MeSH terms
Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical

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