Crossmark

Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes: empirical application of the NASSS framework

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1050-6

Published Online: 2018-05-14

Published Print: 2018-12

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Greenhalgh, Trisha http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088
Wherton, Joe

Papoutsi, Chrysanthi

Lynch, Jenni

Hughes, Gemma

A’Court, Christine

Hinder, Sue

Procter, Rob

Shaw, Sara
Funding

Funding for this research was provided by:

Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA)

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (13/59/26)

Programme Development Grants (RP-DG-1213-10003)

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR- BRC-1215-20008)
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2018-05-14
More Information

Article History

Received: 9 January 2018

Accepted: 5 April 2018

First Online: 14 May 2018

Ethics approval and consent to participate

: Ethical approval for the VOCAL study was obtained from City Road and Hampstead NHS Research Ethics Committee (14/LO/1883) and subsequent amendments. Approval for SCALS sub-studies was from Camden and Kings Cross (15/LO/0482), Camden & Islington (13/LO/1610) and South Central (Berkshire; 15/SC/0553) NHS research ethics committees and from research ethics committees at the University of Birmingham (ERN_11–0598), and University of Oxford (MS-IDREC-C1–2015-227) and subsequent amendments. All participants gave written informed consent.

: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.