IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v60y2005i9p1937-1948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Calnan, Michael
  • Montaner, David
  • Horne, Rob

Abstract

There has been a continuing debate about the extent to which the public finds health-care technological innovation acceptable. The public's ambivalence about scientific medicine may have been exacerbated, more recently, by developments such as the introduction of the 'new genetics' with their associated ethical and social implications and the claims that public trust in health care and practitioners and, more widely, in society has been eroded. The aim of this paper is to examine public attitudes to a range of innovative health-care technologies to see whether (i) certain technologies are perceived as particularly problematic, and (ii) attitudes to new health-care technologies are associated more broadly with beliefs about science, trust in health care and social trust, and perceptions of the benefits and risks of complementary and alternative medicine versus orthodox (technological) medicine. These questions are examined through a statistical analysis of data collected in a national, postal survey of the adult population (n=1187) in England and Wales. The results showed public ambivalence about new health-care technologies, although genetic technologies, as a whole, were not seen to be problematic and their acceptability depended on their ability to control serious diseases. However, there was a level of consistency in attitude across the different technologies. Those consistently against new health-care technologies were also more likely to be suspicious of science, and doubtful about the benefits of other established, orthodox technologies (screening; medications) and to have less trust in health and health-care practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Calnan, Michael & Montaner, David & Horne, Rob, 2005. "How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1937-1948, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:9:p:1937-1948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00469-1
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Straten, G. F. M. & Friele, R. D. & Groenewegen, P. P., 2002. "Public trust in Dutch health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 227-234, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prainsack, Barbara & Spector, Tim D., 2006. "Twins: A cloning experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2739-2752, November.
    2. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    3. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Shim, Jae-Mahn & Kim, Jibum, 2020. "Contextualizing geneticization and medical pluralism: How variable institutionalization of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) conditions effects of genetic beliefs on utilizat," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    5. Rob Horne & Sarah C E Chapman & Rhian Parham & Nick Freemantle & Alastair Forbes & Vanessa Cooper, 2013. "Understanding Patients’ Adherence-Related Beliefs about Medicines Prescribed for Long-Term Conditions: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Necessity-Concerns Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ho Fai Chan & Martin Brumpton & Alison Macintyre & Jefferson Arapoc & David A Savage & Ahmed Skali & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2020. "How confidence in health care systems affects mobility and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Ozawa, Sachiko & Sripad, Pooja, 2013. "How do you measure trust in the health system? A systematic review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 10-14.
    3. Dell D. Saulnier & Christabel Saidi & Theresa Hambokoma & Joseph M. Zulu & Juliet Zulu & Felix Masiye, 2024. "Truth, humane treatment, and identity: perspectives on the legitimacy of the public and private health sectors during Covid in Zambia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. van der Schee, Evelien & Braun, Bernard & Calnan, Michael & Schnee, Melanie & Groenewegen, Peter P., 2007. "Public trust in health care: A comparison of Germany, The Netherlands, and England and Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 56-67, April.
    5. Mohseni, Mohabbat & Lindstrom, Martin, 2007. "Social capital, trust in the health-care system and self-rated health: The role of access to health care in a population-based study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 1373-1383, April.
    6. Schneider, Pia, 2005. "Trust in micro-health insurance: an exploratory study in Rwanda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1430-1438, October.
    7. Goudge, Jane & Gilson, Lucy, 2005. "How can trust be investigated? Drawing lessons from past experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1439-1451, October.
    8. Ezumah, Nkoli & Manzano, Ana & Ezenwaka, Uchenna & Obi, Uche & Ensor, Tim & Etiaba, Enyi & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ebenso, Bassey & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Huss, Reinhard & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2022. "Role of trust in sustaining provision and uptake of maternal and child healthcare: Evidence from a national programme in Nigeria," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    9. Russell, Steven, 2005. "Treatment-seeking behaviour in urban Sri Lanka: Trusting the state, trusting private providers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1396-1407, October.
    10. Katarzyna Krot & Iga Rudawska, 2021. "How Public Trust in Health Care Can Shape Patient Overconsumption in Health Systems? The Missing Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Megan M McLaughlin & Louis Simonson & Xia Zou & Li Ling & Joseph D Tucker, 2015. "African Migrant Patients’ Trust in Chinese Physicians: A Social Ecological Approach to Understanding Patient-Physician Trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    13. Gilson, Lucy & Palmer, Natasha & Schneider, Helen, 2005. "Trust and health worker performance: exploring a conceptual framework using South African evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1418-1429, October.
    14. Mauro ROMANELLI, 2017. "Towards Sustainable Health Care Organizations," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 5(3), pages 377-394, September.

    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:60:y:2005:i:9:p:1937-1948. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.