According to the diffusion of innovation theory, innovators and early adopters represent 16% of a population and early majorities are 34% [ 17].
Our grounded theory analysis of the interview transcripts revealed four common themes across the decisions: 1) perception of benefits (N = 45) and costs (N = 31), 2) diffusion of innovation led by innovators (N = 34), 3) local champions (N = 46), and 4) social networks and norms (N = 30).
The crucial populations in this pathway, drawing from diffusion of innovation theory, are LIC innovators, LIC early adopters, and HIC innovators.
(Innovation directly related to the healthcare provision) Barriers to the implementation and diffusion of innovations were perceived to arise when the innovators and the decision-makers belonged to different professional groups.
Research on diffusion of innovations postulated a two-step model by which innovations are adopted by a population with innovators as the individuals who adopt first, followed by others copying their behaviour [ 16, 17].
It is argued that understanding the process of technological diffusion and innovation is critically important for any country that desires to join the group of core innovators.
[ 10, 13, 14] Consistent with the theory on the diffusion of innovation [ 14, 15], the pharmacists accepting the challenge of trialling a new cognitive service may be considered "innovators" and/or "early adopters".
Whereas innovation spread within settings moves from early adopter to early majority populations (as described above by Rogers in diffusion of innovation theory), we argue that spread across settings is more likely to move from LIC early adopters to HIC innovators.
Moreover, the diffusion of digital innovation has lowered the entry barriers for potential innovators (e.g. Bharadwaj et al. 2013, p. 472; Iansiti and Lakhani 2014, p. 92; Yoo et al. 2010b, p. 9; Zammuto et al. 2007, p. 750).
I review work that studies the identity of innovators, the process of diffusion of innovation, and private benefits of innovation.
