Search

Background: Frontline health professionals are well-placed to develop and implement beneficial innovations. Evidence supports the clinical and financial benefits of Registered Dietitian (RD)-led improvement initiatives, but we know little about how RDs perceive of innovation or of themselves as innovators. The objectives of the study were to gain an understanding of: 1) how RDs define innovation; 2) who RDs perceive as innovative; 3) whether RDs feel prepared to innovate, and; 4) to what extent work context impacts RDs' capacity to innovate at work., Methods: All RDs employed in Canada were eligible to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and a deductive-inductive approach was applied to qualitative analysis. Specifically, Scott & Bruce's (1994) Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace was first applied as a coding structure., Results: Respondents (n = 18) exhibited a pro-innovation disposition and a gendered perception of innovation. Few felt their preparatory education prepared them to be innovators in the workplace. All components of Scott & Bruce's model were supported. Inductive codes were categorized into five themes, including: benefits, dietetics-specific, health care system, technology and individual characteristics., Conclusions: Researchers have previously raised concerns about gendered perceptions of innovation; our results support the legitimacy of these concerns. RDs reported entering the workforce unprepared to be innovative. While the applicability of Scott & Bruce's model among RDs was confirmed, deficits in the model were noted beyond what would be expected due to context., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study protocol was reviewed by the University of Prince Edward Island Research Ethics Board (#6008311) and complied with Tri-Council guidelines for research involving human participants. Written informed consent was provided at the time of survey completion and oral informed consent to record the interview was provided just prior to the interview. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)