Wouter Keijser, Jacco Smits, Lisanne Penterman and Celeste Wilderom
This paper aims to systematically review the literature on roles of physicians in virtual teams (VTs) delivering healthcare for effective “physician e-leadership” (PeL) and…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to systematically review the literature on roles of physicians in virtual teams (VTs) delivering healthcare for effective “physician e-leadership” (PeL) and implementation of e-health.
Design/methodology/approach
The analyzed studies were retrieved with explicit keywords and criteria, including snowball sampling. They were synthesized with existing theoretical models on VT research, healthcare team competencies and medical leadership.
Findings
Six domains for further PeL inquiry are delineated: resources, task processes, socio-emotional processes, leadership in VTs, virtual physician-patient relationship and change management. We show that, to date, PeL studies on socio-technical dynamics and their consequences on e-health are found underrepresented in the health literature; i.e. no single empirical, theoretic or conceptual study with a focus on PeL in virtual healthcare work was identified.
Research limitations/implications
E-health practices could benefit from organization-behavioral type of research for discerning effective physicians’ roles and inter-professional relations and their (so far) seemingly modest but potent impact on e-health developments.
Practical implications
Although best practices in e-health care have already been identified, this paper shows that physicians’ roles in e-health initiatives have not yet received any in-depth study. This raises questions such as are physicians not yet sufficiently involved in e-health? If so, what (dis)advantages may this have for current e-health investments and how can they best become involved in (leading) e-health applications’ design and implementation in the field?
Originality/value
If effective medical leadership is being deployed, e-health effectiveness may be enhanced; this new proposition needs urgent empirical scrutiny.
Details
Keywords
Sociology of sport does not exist as a (sub)discipline or course of study in the Netherlands. Scholars who call themselves sport sociologists engage in a variety of research and…
Abstract
Sociology of sport does not exist as a (sub)discipline or course of study in the Netherlands. Scholars who call themselves sport sociologists engage in a variety of research and related publication activities. Many of these might not strictly fit under some understandings of the title “sociology” since they focus on sport management, policy implementation, and change. In this chapter, I describe how sociology of sport research tends to be defined and how that research is used to defend government spending on sport participation. This instrumental approach means the results of Dutch research using critical perspectives are often heard only internationally. I explain how the structure of Dutch academia, which limits the number of associate professors and professors, relies primarily on external funding for research and makes such funding difficult to obtain if it does not fit within a specified perspective, and limits who is able to engage in research and the type of research that is produced. I show how this structure in combination with the emphasis on an instrumental function of sport has largely shaped much of the research and has limited the use of a variety of theoretical frameworks and the development of a robust and coherent body of knowledge about the sociology of sport in the Netherlands.