The widespread deployment of telehealth (TH) has been conducted in the absence of any clear understanding of how acceptable these devices are to patients. One potential…
The widespread deployment of telehealth (TH) has been conducted in the absence of any clear understanding of how acceptable these devices are to patients. One potential limitation of the widespread deployment of TH is that patients may refuse. Moreover an understanding of the reasons for refusing to use TH devices will provide an understanding of the barriers.
This investigation from the Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) programme, a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial into the effectiveness of TH, examined reasons for patients in the intervention cohort of the trial refusing TH, and the potential barriers to its deployment.
Active rejection of the TH intervention was the most frequent reason for withdrawal. After examination of trial-related, health, socio-demographic, cognitive, emotional and behavioural factors, patients diagnosed with diabetes, as opposed to heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and patients’ beliefs about the acceptability of the intervention predicted whether or not they withdrew from the trial because of the intervention.
Beliefs that the TH intervention resulted in increased accessibility to care, satisfaction with equipment and fewer concerns about the privacy, safety and discomfort associated with using TH equipment predicted continued participation in the WSD trial. Findings suggest that potentially modifiable beliefs about TH predict those more likely to reject the intervention. These findings have important implications for understanding individual differences in the acceptance of TH and subsequent success in mainstreaming TH in healthcare services.
The purpose of this paper is to explore trends in entrepreneurship spaces developed by universities to support entrepreneurship education. It identifies characteristics…
The purpose of this paper is to explore trends in entrepreneurship spaces developed by universities to support entrepreneurship education. It identifies characteristics that make a space conducive to innovation and explains whether current spaces adequately conform to those characteristics. More generally, this paper seeks to clarify what is being built, for which purposes and with what results.
Given the novelty of this research, the paper uses a multiple-method approach to allow for an iterative examination between theory and data. Multiple data and methods were used, including an action research method, a systematic survey of 57 entrepreneurship spaces at US universities and a thematic and content analyses of interviews carried out with individuals directly involved in the functioning of such spaces.
The paper presents a prescriptive model aimed at guiding the practitioner in the design of an entrepreneurship space. It identifies five types of entrepreneurship spaces that differentially support entrepreneurial activities and rely on different characteristics. These characteristics are centrally important for innovation and entrepreneurship spaces.
There are a number of practical implications from the work. It identifies key challenges in the design of entrepreneurship spaces and shows which questions to consider in the decision-making process.
The paper advances research on entrepreneurship spaces, an important yet poorly understood phenomenon. It reviews and introduces the literature on how space can support innovation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial “spirit’” and proposes a typology of entrepreneurship spaces, providing a path toward more robust and comprehensive theory building.
This paper aims to examine the role and experiences of women working in the industrial relations (IR) academy and to explore the recent claim that the subject of…
This paper aims to examine the role and experiences of women working in the industrial relations (IR) academy and to explore the recent claim that the subject of industrial relations has “been very receptive to the contributions of feminist analysis”.
An examination is made of the liminal position of women IR scholars in the IR academy and their concern for feminist and gender analysis. Parallels are drawn with IR and trade unions, focusing mainly on Britain, which also occupy, simultaneously, insider and outsider spaces. This approach draws on the relevant literature and is then tested through a questionnaire survey of women scholars working in the field, the author included, together with interviews and interactive discussions about the findings.
Gender politics remain highly contested in the IR academy, with women and their work experiencing considerable marginalisation and exclusion. Nevertheless women IR scholars display a high level of commitment to the field, especially its emphasis on policy and practice. The conclusion is that so far, a “gender turn” has yet to occur in the field in the way that women's studies is claimed as being part of a new knowledge movement.
A limitation of the study is a relatively low response rate to the questionnaire, with a bias towards older, more senior women academics.
For probably the first time the role and experiences in the IR academy of women researchers/ academics are examined and published. The study reveals that the exclusion and sexism experienced there closely reflect the gender and diversity analyses in the IR field.