Professional Networks and the Adoption of Medical Technologies: An Empirical Study on Robotic Surgery

  • Valentina Iacopino
  • Daniele Mascia
  • Alberto Monti
  • Americo Cicchetti


The advancement of knowledge and the availability of new technologies in health care deeply influence patients’ length and quality of life. Current health care systems have thus re-organized services provided in order to select effective solutions and to the increasing demand of more complex and costly services. Such need frequently implies a re-orientation of health care organizations and providers. Given that the real success of a specific technology is measured by its use in clinical practice, the exploration of those factors affecting the adoption and use of innovations seems to be convenient. Particularly, a number of information is considered in the decision-making process of clinicians: the mindlines, namely, tacit and informal knowledge and the clinical guidelines. This chapter presents and discusses retrospectively these dynamics in the Italian National Health Care Service (I-NHS) with regard of an innovative surgical system, the Da Vinci Robot, which is a minimally invasive surgical system receiving great organizational and managerial interest. The objective of the study is to understand the role of informational determinants, both mindlines and guidelines, in the temporal choice of adoption of the technology by the Italian adopters. A semi-structured questionnaire was built and submitted to surgeons in order to collect information about the usage of the technology, the advice network of professionals, and the sources of information accessed to determine the choice of adoption of the technology. At the end of the administration period, twenty-eight adopters fully answered to the questionnaire. Social network analysis (SNA) techniques were used to analyze the advice inter-physician networks, and pseudo-network measures were used to the identify the degree of similarity/difference between each pair of surgeons involved in the study. Multiple regression quadratic assignment procedures (MR-QAP) were run to test the statistical association among our dependent variable (temporal difference in the adoption of the surgical system) and the different sources of information selected in the study both guidelines and the mindlines. We found a significant and positive effect of the extent to which two individuals used guidelines such as evidence-based medicine (EBM) documents and information to discover for the first time about the technology on their subsequent adoption. In other words, the greater the number of same sources used, the smaller the distance in terms of months in the adoption of the new technology. Overall, we confirm the importance of sharing the same formal sources of information (guidelines) above and beyond individual’s informal network (mindlines) in affecting the similarity in the temporal choice of adoption of the technology. Our study contributes with original evidence to understand the adoption process of a new technology in health care, providing new insights about how beliefs and values about the technology are created and concur to define the temporal choice of adoption. Contrarily to what stated in previous research, we elicit the prominent role of different formal informational sources (EBM) in determining the final judgment toward technological change in health care and in controlling the uncertainty of highly innovative technologies.



The authors would like to thank the National Agency for Regional Health Services (Agenas) for the support provided in data collection activity.


  1. Anderson, J. G., & Jay, S. J. (1985). Computers and clinical judgement: The role of physician networks. Social Science and Medicine, 20(10), 969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. G. (2002). UCINET 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  3. Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Huber, G. P. (1999). Determinants of executive beliefs: Comparing functional conditioning and social influence. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 763–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman, J., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20(4), 253–270.Google Scholar
  5. Compagni, A., Mele, V., & Ravasi, D. (2015). How early implementations influence later adoptions of innovation: Social positioning and skill reproduction in the diffusion of robotic surgery. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 242–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dandi, R., D’Alise, C., & Mascia, D. (2013). Network professionali e uso delle linee guida: il caso della pediatria di libera scelta. Mecosan, 87, 9–28.Google Scholar
  7. Denis, J. L., Hébert, Y., Langley, A., Lozeau, D., & Trottier, L. H. (2002). Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Management Review, 27(3), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dopson, S., FitzGerald, L., Ferlie, E., Gabbay, J., & Locock, L. (2002). No magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Management Review, 27(3), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fattore, G., Frosini, F., Salvatore, D., & Tozzi, V. (2009). Social network analysis in primary care: The impact of interactions on prescribing behaviour. Health Policy, 92(2), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2005). The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrè et al. (2014) Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition, 16(4).Google Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2002). Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Human Relations, 55(12), 1429–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabbay, J., & le May, A. (2004). Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed mindlines? Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. British Medical Journal, 329(7473), 1013.Google Scholar
  14. Ho, V. T., & Levesque, L. L. (2005). With a little help from my friends (and substitutes): Social referents and influence in psychological contract fulfillment. Organization Science, 16(3), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iacopino, V., Mascia, D., & Cicchetti, A. (2016). Professional networks and the alignment of individual perceptions about medical innovation. Health Care Management Review, 2016, [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  16. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kathleen M. Carley. (2014). ORA: A toolkit for dynamic network analysis and visualization. In Reda Alhajj and Jon Rokne (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining. Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10(4), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krackhardt, D. (1997). Organizational viscosity and the diffusion of controversial innovations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 22(2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mascia, D., & Cicchetti, A. (2011). Physician social capital and the reported adoption of evidence-based medicine: Exploring the role of structural holes. Social Science and Medicine, 72(5), 798–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mascia, D., Dandi, R., & Di Vincenzo, F. (2014b). Professional networks and EBM use: A study of inter-physician interaction across levels of care. Health Policy, 118(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  22. Mascia, D., Morandi, F., & Cicchetti, A. (2014a). Looking good or doing better? Patterns of decoupling in the implementation of clinical directorates. Health Care Management Review, 39(2), 111–123.Google Scholar
  23. Mascia, D., Di Vincenzo, F., Iacopino, V., Fantini, M. P., & Cicchetti, A. (2015). Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: The impact of institutional and professional homophily. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1).Google Scholar
  24. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monti, A. (2015). The network base of social identification: Tie contents, network structures and boundary conditions. Paper presented in a Divisional Paper session (OB) at the 74th AOM, scheduled for August 7–11 in Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Monti, A., & Bergami M. (2014). Interpersonal citizenship behaviors (ICB): The role of ICB attitude and members prototypicality. In John Humphreys (Eds.), Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 16717), Academy of Management. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.238. Awarded for the “Best Paper Proceedings” by the Organizational Behavior Division.
  27. Monti, A., & Soda, G. (2014). Perceived organizational identification and prototypicality as origins of knowledge exchange networks. In Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks (pp. 357–379). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  28. Quartz-Topp, J., Sanne, J. M., & Pöstges, H. (2016). Hybrid practices as a means to implement quality improvement: A comparative qualitative study in a Dutch and Swedish hospital. Health Care Management Review, 2016, [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  29. Rye, C. B., & Kimberly, J. R. (2007). The adoption of innovations by provider organizations in health care. Medical Care Research and Review, 64(3), 235–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Google Scholar
  31. WHO (World Health Organization). (2007). Everybody’s business. Strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO’s framework for action. Retrieved from:
  32. Yang, C., Fang, S., & Huang, W. (2007). Isomorphic pressures, institutional strategies, and knowledge creation in the health care sector. Health Care Management Review, 32(3), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Iacopino
    • 1
  • Daniele Mascia
    • 2
  • Alberto Monti
    • 3
  • Americo Cicchetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and Graduate School of Health Economics and ManagementRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Management, University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Management and Technology & ASK Research CenterBocconi UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations