| Course | NUR 640 Integrative Theories of Innovation in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Mind map in outline form with working definition and article analysis |
| Length | About 706 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 640 Module 3
Three Theories, One Definition, One Test: A Mind Map of Innovation Theories Applied to the Rise of Telemedicine
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
NUR 640: Integrative Theories of Innovation in Health Care
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Theories, One Definition, One Test: A Mind Map of Innovation Theories Applied to the Rise of Telemedicine
Central Node: What Is Innovation?
The map's center asks one question, and each branch answers it from a different theory before the definition branch draws them together.
Branch 1: Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers)
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Source | Rogers (2003), a synthesis of decades of diffusion research across fields |
| Definition of innovation | An idea, practice or object perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption |
| Key concepts | Five attributes that shape adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability; adopter categories from innovators to laggards; communication channels over time |
| Assumptions | Adoption is a decision process; newness is in the eye of the adopter |
| Relevance to nursing | Explains why some evidence-based practices spread quickly and others stall |
Branch 2: Disruptive Innovation (Christensen)
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Source | Christensen and colleagues, applied to health care (Christensen et al., 2000) |
| Definition of innovation | A simpler, cheaper product or service that first serves overlooked or low-end customers and then moves upmarket, displacing established providers |
| Key concepts | Sustaining versus disruptive innovation; enabling technology; new business model; low-end entry |
| Assumptions | Incumbents improve products beyond what many customers need, leaving room below them |
| Relevance to nursing | Retail clinics and nurse practitioner-led care as examples of lower-cost entrants |
Branch 3: Diffusion in Service Organizations (Greenhalgh) (Theory of Choice)
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Source | A systematic review that built a model of how innovations spread in health service organizations (Greenhalgh et al., 2004) |
| Definition of innovation | A novel set of behaviors, routines and ways of working directed at improving health outcomes, administrative efficiency or user experience, implemented by planned and coordinated action |
| Key concepts | The innovation's features, the people adopting it, how influence travels, the organization's antecedents and readiness, the wider context and the work of implementation |
| Assumptions | Spread in organizations is complex, nonlinear and context-dependent |
| Relevance to nursing | Accounts for unit culture, leadership and resources, not just the innovation itself |
Branch 4: Similarities, Differences and Relationships
Similarities: all three treat newness as relative and recognize that adoption depends on more than the idea's merit. Differences: Rogers centers the individual adopter's decision; Christensen centers markets and business models; Greenhalgh centers organizations and context. Relationships: Greenhalgh extends Rogers into organizations and adds complexity; Christensen explains which innovations threaten incumbents, a question the other two do not ask.
Branch 5: My Working Definition
Innovation in health care is a new or newly applied idea, practice, technology or model of care, perceived as new by the people and organization adopting it, that is deliberately introduced to create meaningful value for patients, staff or the system, and that changes how work is done, not only what equipment is used.
Sources: newness as perception from Rogers (2003); deliberate introduction and value from Greenhalgh et al. (2004); new models of care from Christensen et al. (2000).
Assumptions: value must be demonstrable; adoption occurs within a complex adaptive system whose response cannot be fully predicted (Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001).
Defining features: perceived newness, intent to create value, a change in the way work is done.
Exclusions: routine change, such as updating a policy to match a new regulation, is change but not innovation, because it adds no new value; technology purchased but used to do the same work in the same way is not innovation.
Branch 6: Applying the Definition to a 2021 Article
Patel et al. (2021) described the rapid growth of telemedicine in outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing a sharp rise in telemedicine visits in spring 2020 followed by a partial decline as in-person care resumed. Measured against my definition, telemedicine meets the criteria of perceived newness for most clinicians and of changing how work is done. Whether it creates meaningful value is less clear from this study, which describes volume rather than outcomes. The article supports calling telemedicine an innovation in delivery, but my definition would ask for evidence of value before treating it as a successful one. The partial retreat to in-person care also fits Rogers' attributes: compatibility with existing workflows and observability of results were uneven.
Peer Review Note
My peer's critique of the draft suggested that my first definition was too broad; I added the exclusions in the final version.
References
Christensen, C. M., Bohmer, R., & Kenagy, J. (2000). Will disruptive innovations cure health care? Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 102-112.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Patel, S. Y., Mehrotra, A., Huskamp, H. A., Uscher-Pines, L., Ganguli, I., & Barnett, M. L. (2021). Trends in outpatient care delivery and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(3), 388-391. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5928
Plsek, P. E., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ, 323(7313), 625-628. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
What the NUR 640 Module 3 instructions ask for
Individual Assignment 2 runs through Module 2 of NUR 640 in three steps: a draft mind map submitted to Canvas, a critique of a peer's map a week later and the final map a week after that; the assignment is worth 10 points and the peer review earns separate points. The syllabus asks for a mind map that defines and describes three major theories of innovation, two chosen from Rogers' diffusion of innovations, Chesbrough's open innovation and Christensen's disruptive innovation and one of your own choosing, analyzed with the theory analysis template in Canvas. From those theories you build a working definition of innovation with its sources, assumptions, defining features and exclusions, separating change from innovation and drawing on complexity. Finally, you test the definition on a nursing or health care article published in 2021 or later.
Inside the NUR 640 Module 3 example
Because a mind map does not reproduce well in text, the sample presents it as an outline of branches around a central question. Each theory branch uses the same template rows: source, definition of innovation, key concepts, assumptions and relevance to nursing. A comparison branch states the similarities, differences and one relationship for each pair of theories. The definition branch gives a one-sentence definition, then lists its sources by component, its assumptions, its defining features and what it excludes, with a reason. The article branch applies the definition to a 2021 telemedicine study and judges where it fits and falls short. A final note records what changed after peer review.
Where the marks sit in the NUR 640 Module 3 rubric
Canvas carries the rubric and the template for theory analysis. Mind maps in this assignment are generally judged on accurate definitions and concepts for each theory with sources, a real comparison that shows relationships rather than parallel summaries, a working definition whose components are each traced to a source and justified, a clear distinction between change and innovation, integration of complexity concepts, a careful test of the definition against a recent article and visible use of peer feedback. Maps lose credit when the third theory is unexplained, when the definition lacks exclusions, when the article is older than 2021 and when complexity appears only as a label.
NUR 640 Module 3 help with common mistakes
Students often write a definition that would call any change an innovation. Add exclusions, and say why each is excluded. Another common gap is the comparison: three accurate summaries side by side do not show relationships, so state how each pair connects. Use the template's categories consistently across branches. Check the article's publication year against the 2021 requirement. When testing your definition, be willing to conclude that the article's use of "innovative" does not fully fit. Use your peer's critique and say what you changed. The desk can review your draft definition for clarity before the final is due.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 640 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers
- NUR 640 Module 1: Individual Assignment 1: Personal Innovation Profile and Complexity Science
- NUR 640 Module 2: Team Assignment 1: Healthy People 2030 Access Objective and Complexity
- NUR 640 Module 4: Individual Assignment 3: Innovation Model, PESTLE and Human-Centered Design for a Clinical Issue
- NUR 640 Module 5: Team Assignment 2: Theory-Based Process and Toolkit for a Persistent Health Care Problem
- DNP 679 Module 5: One-Way ANOVA Written Assignment
- DNP 673 Module 1: Risk and Protective Factors Discussion
- DNP 714 Module 7: Team Assignment 3: A Scalable Transdisciplinary Care Model
- DNP 672 Module 4: Classes of Mood Stabilizers Discussion
NUR 640 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 640 Module 3 sample paper?
A full NUR 640 Module 3 sample is above: a mind map in outline form comparing Rogers, Christensen and Greenhalgh, a working definition of innovation and a test on a 2021 telemedicine study.
What is the difference between change and innovation?
Change is any alteration in how things are done; innovation is change that brings something perceived as new and is introduced to create meaningful value.
What are Rogers' five attributes of an innovation?
Rogers lists relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability; together they help predict how fast adoption happens.
What is disruptive innovation in health care?
A simpler, lower-cost service that first reaches people overlooked by established providers and then gains ground, such as retail clinics.
Does NUR 640 Individual Assignment 2 include peer review?
Yes. Students submit a draft mind map, critique a peer's map and then submit a final version.