IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i18p1363-1369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social science research on medical technology: Utility and limitations

Author

Listed:
  • Banta, H. David

Abstract

Policies could be better devised and better implemented if greater use were made of the social sciences. However, the social sciences have quite often not produced knowledge adequate to permit resolution of pressing social problems. An example of both of these statements is found in the area of policies toward medical technology. Medical technology has become a major public policy issue in most industrialized countries, primarily because of the rising costs of medical care. Medical technology is a major contributor to these costs. Social science research has led to general formulations as to how medical technology is developed and diffused. In addition, specific studies of medical technology have identified factors that impede or facilitate the development and diffusion of medical technology. However, few studies have been done of public policy mechanisms. Effects of formal policies have not been evaluated, and organizations developed to implement policies toward medical technologies have not been studied. Programs cannot be improved without evaluation, nor can successful approaches be diffused more widely. The development and implementation of public policy toward medical technology would profit if social scientists were to become involved in its examination.

Suggested Citation

  • Banta, H. David, 1983. "Social science research on medical technology: Utility and limitations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(18), pages 1363-1369, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:18:p:1363-1369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90196-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:18:p:1363-1369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.