Table 2 Implementation determinants measured in this study, sub dived per main category

Characteristics of the socio-political context

1. Willingness of participants to cooperate with the innovation

2. Degree to which the participant is aware of the health benefits of the innovation

3. The extent to which the innovation fits into existing rules, regulations and legislation

Characteristics of the organization

4. Decision making process and procedures in the organization: top-down or bottom-up

5. Hierarchical structure: extent to which decision making process is formalized through hierarchical procedures

6. Formal reinforcement by management to integrate the innovation into organizational policies

7. Organizational size (number of employees): large, medium, small

8. Functional structure (task oriented) versus product structure (output oriented)

9. Staff turnover: high, average, low

10. Degree of staff capacity in the organization or department that implements the innovation

11. Available expertise, in relation to the innovation in the organization or department

12. Number of potential users to be reached

13. Financial resources made available for implementing the innovation

14. Reimbursement for implementers/organizations to facilitate extra efforts in applying the innovation

15. Other resources made available for implementing the innovation (e.g. equipment, manuals)

16. Administrative support available to the implementers of the innovation

17. Time available to implement the innovation

18. Availability of staff responsible for coordinating implementation in the organization

19. The implementers are involved in the development of the innovation

20. Opinion leaders who influence opinions of others in the organization or department

21. Cooperation with external partners with respect to the implementation of the innovation

Characteristics of the adopting person/user

22. Support from colleagues in implementing the innovation

23. Support from other implementers within the project in implementing the innovation

24. Support from their supervisors in the department with respect to the implementation of the innovation

25. Support from higher management in the organization with respect to the implementation of the innovation

26. Extent to which colleagues implement the innovation (modeling)

27. Extent to which the implementer has the skills needed to implement the innovation

28. Extent to which the implementer has the knowledge needed to implement the innovation

29. Self-efficacy: confidence of the implementer to perform the behavior needed to implement the innovation

30. Extent to which ownership by the implementer is perceived

31. Extent to which the innovation first the perceived task orientation of the implementer

32. Extent to which the implementer expects that the participant will cooperate with the innovation

33. Extent to which the implementer expects that the participant will be satisfied with the innovation

34. Extent to which the goals of the different implementers with respect to the innovation are contradictory

35. Extent to which the implementer has ethical problems with the innovation

36. Attitude of the implementer with respect to the innovation

37. Outcome expectations of the implementer and participants with respect to the innovation

38. Perceived social norm with respect to the innovation by colleagues and supervisors

39. User directed performance feedback: formative or summative feedback

40. Personal benefits for the implementers

41. Extent to which the implementers work as a team

Characteristics of the innovation

42. Extent to which the procedures/guidelines of the innovation are clear

43. Extent to which the procedures/guidelines are read by the implementers

44. Extent to which the innovation is complete

45. Extent to which the innovation is too complex to work with

46. Information provided: sufficient, insufficient.

47. Compatibility: degree to which the innovation is perceived as consistent with existing work procedures

48. Triability: extent to which the innovation can be subjected to trial

49. Relative advantage: extent to which the innovation is perceived as advantageous

50. Observability: degree to which the results of the innovations are observable to the implementer

51. Extent to which the innovation is appealing to use

52. Relevance of the innovation for the participant: extent to which the innovation has added value

53. Frequency of use of the innovation: high, low

54. Image of the innovation in the organization: positive, negative