| Title |
Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10488-013-0486-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer P. Wisdom, Ka Ho Brian Chor, Kimberly E. Hoagwood, Sarah M. Horwitz |
| Abstract |
Many theoretical frameworks seek to describe the dynamic process of the implementation of innovations. Little is known, however, about factors related to decisions to adopt innovations and how the likelihood of adoption of innovations can be increased. Using a narrative synthesis approach, this paper compared constructs theorized to be related to adoption of innovations proposed in existing theoretical frameworks in order to identify characteristics likely to increase adoption of innovations. The overall goal was to identify elements across adoption frameworks that are potentially modifiable and, thus, might be employed to improve the adoption of evidence-based practices. The review identified 20 theoretical frameworks that could be grouped into two broad categories: theories that mainly address the adoption process (N = 10) and theories that address adoption within the context of implementation, diffusion, dissemination, and/or sustainability (N = 10). Constructs of leadership, operational size and structure, innovation fit with norms and values, and attitudes/motivation toward innovations each are mentioned in at least half of the theories, though there were no consistent definitions of measures for these constructs. A lack of precise definitions and measurement of constructs suggests further work is needed to increase our understanding of adoption of innovations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,026 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 5 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1003 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 202 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 190 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 106 | 10% |
| Researcher | 84 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 52 | 5% |
| Other | 158 | 15% |
| Unknown | 234 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 220 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 125 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 78 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 53 | 5% |
| Engineering | 50 | 5% |
| Other | 234 | 23% |
| Unknown | 266 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,371,973
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#81
of 670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,927
of 201,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.