IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v83y2013icp119-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A large-scale longitudinal study indicating the importance of perceived effectiveness, organizational and management support for innovative culture

Author

Listed:
  • Cramm, Jane M.
  • Strating, Mathilde M.H.
  • Bal, Roland
  • Nieboer, Anna P.

Abstract

Teams participating in QI collaboratives reportedly enhance innovative culture in long-term care, but we currently lack empirical evidence of the ability of such teams to enhance (determinants of) innovative culture over time. The objectives of our study are therefore to explore innovative cultures in QI teams over time and identify its determinants. The study included QI teams participating between 2006 and 2011 in a national Dutch quality program (Care for Better), using an adapted version of the Breakthrough Method. Each QI team member received a questionnaire by mail within one week after the second (2–3 months post-implementation of the collaborative = T0) and final conference (12 months post-implementation = T1). A total of 859 (out of 1161) respondents filled in the questionnaire at T0 and 541 at T1 (47% response). A total of 307 team members filled in the questionnaire at both T0 and T1. We measured innovative culture, respondent characteristics (age, gender, education), perceived team effectiveness, organizational support, and management support. Two-tailed paired t-tests showed that innovative culture was slightly but significantly lower at T1 compared to T0 (12 months and 2–3 months after the start of the collaborative, respectively). Univariate analyses revealed that perceived effectiveness, organizational and management support were significantly related to innovative culture at T1 (all at p ≤ 0.001). Multilevel analyses showed that perceived effectiveness, organizational support, and management support predicted innovative culture. Our QI teams were not able to improve innovative culture over time, but their innovative culture scores were higher than non-participant professionals. QI interventions require organizational and management support to enhance innovative culture in long-term care settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Cramm, Jane M. & Strating, Mathilde M.H. & Bal, Roland & Nieboer, Anna P., 2013. "A large-scale longitudinal study indicating the importance of perceived effectiveness, organizational and management support for innovative culture," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 119-124.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:83:y:2013:i:c:p:119-124
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613000427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nieboer, Anna P. & Koolman, Xander & Stolk, Elly A., 2010. "Preferences for long-term care services: Willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1317-1325, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Surasak Jotaworn & Vilas Nitivattananon & Kyoko Kusakabe & Wenchao Xue, 2021. "Partnership towards Synergistic Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in a Coastal Tourism Sub-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Cong Cheng & Liebing Cao & Huihui Zhong & Yining He & Jiahong Qian, 2019. "The Influence of Leader Encouragement of Creativity on Innovation Speed: Findings from SEM and fsQCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    3. Nieboer, Anna P. & Cramm, Jane M., 2018. "How do older people achieve well-being? Validation of the Social Production Function Instrument for the level of well-being–short (SPF-ILs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 304-313.
    4. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike & van Ooijen, Raun, 2021. "Preferences for In-Kind and In-Cash Home Care Insurance," Discussion Paper 2021-033, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Joan & Frank, Richard, 2020. "Uninsured by Choice? A choice experiment on long term care insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 422-434.
    6. He, Alex Jingwei & Qian, Jiwei & Chan, Wai-sum & Chou, Kee-lee, 2021. "Preferences for private long-term care insurance products in a super-ageing society: A discrete choice experiment in Hong Kong," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    7. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    8. van Ooijen, Raun & de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike, 2019. "Preferences for Long-Term Care Services: Bequests, Informal Care and Health Expectations," Other publications TiSEM a60a8e39-57eb-48e4-89b4-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike & van Ooijen, Raun, 2022. "Preferences for in-kind and in-cash home care insurance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Walsh, Sharon & O'Shea, Eamon & Pierse, Tom & Kennelly, Brendan & Keogh, Fiona & Doherty, Edel, 2020. "Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    11. Mihic, Marko M. & Todorovic, Marija Lj. & Obradovic, Vladimir Lj., 2014. "Economic analysis of social services for the elderly in Serbia: Two sides of the same coin," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 9-21.
    12. Song, Shan & Wang, De & Zhu, Wei & Wang, Can, 2020. "Study on the spatial configuration of nursing homes for the elderly people in Shanghai: Based on their choice preference," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Teahan, Áine & Walsh, Sharon & Doherty, Edel & O'Shea, Eamon, 2021. "Supporting family carers of people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment of public preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    14. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    15. Amilon, Anna & Kjær, Agnete Aslaug & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu, 2022. "Trust in the publicly financed care system and willingness to pay for long-term care: A discrete choice experiment in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    16. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:83:y:2013:i:c:p:119-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.