Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39935856›Full record

ArticleInnovation (North Sydney, N.S.W.)2025

Institutionalisation of convergent medical innovation: an empirical study of the MRI-guided linear accelerator in the Netherlands and the United States.

Charisma Hehakaya, Ellen H M Moors

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovation (North Sydney, N.S.W.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Charisma HehakayaGlobal Public Health & Bioethics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9341-7240
Ellen H M MoorsInnovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although convergence is a major trend in the development of medical innovations, the implications of the institutionalisation of convergent innovation are understudied. This paper explores how the institutionalisation of convergent innovation affects the organisation of health care, by using operational domains and categories of the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) and the Institutional Readiness (IR) approach respectively. We use an illustrative comparative case study on the institutionalisation of MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) technology in the Netherlands and the United States. Empirically, we conducted 66 interviews with different professionals in the health care system around MR-Linac. The findings show that institutionalisation of convergent innovation affects the organisation of health care by: changing the traditional organisation of solving a medical problem, thereby transforming and reorganising work in the health care environment, providing opportunities for individual user development, collective action and cross-sectoral developments, and requiring the additional work of evaluating convergent innovation, including administrative tasks, innovation and research activities within and across institutions. The insights offered are also relevant for understanding convergence in the medical field, and for rethinking medical innovation in general.

Indexed as

complex innovationconvergenceconvergent innovationconvergent technologyInstitutionalisationorganisational design

Identifiers

PMID39935856
PMCPMC11809769

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.