IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i2p1084-d1028431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Influencing the Adoption of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe, A Group Concept Mapping Study

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi

    (Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany)

  • Ann-Cathrine Siefen

    (Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany)

  • Debora M. Moretti

    (Institute for Food and Resource Economics, Chair for Technology, Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Sin Yuin Yeo

    (Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany)

  • Holger Grüll

    (Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
    Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Cologne, 50939 Cologne, Germany)

  • Grischa Bratke

    (Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany)

  • Alessio Giuseppe Morganti

    (Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
    Radiation Oncology, DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna University, 40138 Bologna, Italy)

  • Alberto Bazzocchi

    (Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Chiara Gasperini

    (Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

  • Francesca De Felice

    (Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Roberto Blanco Sequeiros

    (Department of Radiology, Turku University Hospital, 20521 Turku, Finland)

  • Mira Huhtala

    (Department of Oncology, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, 20521 Turku, Finland)

  • Ingrid M. Nijholt

    (Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands)

  • Martijn F. Boomsma

    (Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands
    Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Clemens Bos

    (Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Helena M. Verkooijen

    (Division of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Dirk Müller

    (Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany)

  • Stephanie Stock

    (Institute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany)

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is an innovative treatment for patients with painful bone metastases. The adoption of MR-HIFU will be influenced by several factors beyond its effectiveness. To identify contextual factors affecting the adoption of MR-HIFU, we conducted a group concept mapping (GCM) study in four European countries. The GCM was conducted in two phases. First, the participants brainstormed statements guided by the focus prompt “One factor that may influence the uptake of MR-HIFU in clinical practice is...”. Second, the participants sorted statements into categories and rated the statements according to their importance and changeability. To generate a concept map, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were conducted, and average ratings for each (cluster of) factors were calculated. Forty-five participants contributed to phase I and/or II (56% overall participation rate). The resulting concept map comprises 49 factors, organized in 12 clusters: “competitive treatments”, “physicians’ attitudes”, “alignment of resources”, “logistics and workflow”, “technical disadvantages”, “radiotherapy as first-line therapy”, “aggregating knowledge and improving awareness”, “clinical effectiveness”, “patients’ preferences”, “reimbursement”, “cost-effectiveness” and “hospital costs”. The factors identified echo those from the literature, but their relevance and interrelationship are case-specific. Besides evidence on clinical effectiveness, contextual factors from 10 other clusters should be addressed to support adoption of MR-HIFU.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi & Ann-Cathrine Siefen & Debora M. Moretti & Sin Yuin Yeo & Holger Grüll & Grischa Bratke & Alessio Giuseppe Morganti & Alberto Bazzocchi & Chiara Gasperini & Francesca De F, 2023. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe, A Group Concept Mapping Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1084-:d:1028431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1084/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1084/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott R. Rosas, 2017. "Group concept mapping methodology: toward an epistemology of group conceptualization, complexity, and emergence," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1403-1416, May.
    2. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    2. Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    3. Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla & Mahdi Mohammed Alamri, 2021. "Using Conceptual Mapping for Learning to Affect Students’ Motivation and Academic Achievement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Caroline Schlinkert & Marleen Gillebaart & Jeroen Benjamins & Maartje P. Poelman & Denise de Ridder, 2020. "Snacks and The City: Unexpected Low Sales of an Easy-Access, Tasty, and Healthy Snack at an Urban Snacking Hotspot," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Kane, Mary, 2014. "Concept mapping and network analysis: An analytic approach to measure ties among constructs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 9-17.
    6. Sutherland, Stephanie & Katz, Steven, 2005. "Concept mapping methodology: A catalyst for organizational learning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 257-269, August.
    7. Urban, Jennifer Brown & Hargraves, Monica & Trochim, William M., 2014. "Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 127-139.
    8. Sofia Patsali, 2019. "Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence," Working Papers of BETA 2019-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    9. Luis Miranda-Gumucio & Ignacio Gil-Pechuán & Daniel Palacios-Marqués, 2013. "An exploratory study of the determinants of switching and loyalty in prepaid cell phone users. An application of concept mapping," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 7(4), pages 603-622, December.
    10. Shern, David L. & Trochim, William M. K. & LaComb, Christina A., 1995. "The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 143-153.
    11. Van Holen, Frank & Van Loock, Julie & Belenger, Laurence & Vanderfaeillie, Johan, 2017. "Concept mapping the needs of grandmothers who take care of their grandchildren in formal foster care in Flanders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 159-167.
    12. Poole, Dennis L. & Duvall, Deborah & Wofford, Bethany, 2006. "Concept mapping key elements and performance measures in a state nursing home-to-community transition project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 10-22, February.
    13. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    14. Rosas, Scott R. & Ridings, John W., 2017. "The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 265-276.
    15. Péladeau, Normand & Dagenais, Christian & Ridde, Valéry, 2017. "Concept mapping internal validity: A case of misconceived mapping?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-63.
    16. Erin Lebow-Skelley & Sarah Yelton & Brandi Janssen & Esther Erdei & Melanie A. Pearson, 2020. "Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Southern, Donna M. & Young, Doris & Dunt, David & Appleby, Natalie J. & Batterham, Roy W., 2002. "Integration of primary health care services: perceptions of Australian general practitioners, non-general practitioner health service providers and consumers at the general practice-primary care inter," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 47-59, February.
    18. Brown, Jason D. & Ivanova, Viktoria & Mehta, Nisha & Skrodzki, Donna & Gerrits, Julie, 2013. "Social needs of aboriginal foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1886-1893.
    19. Shewchuk, Richard M. & O'Connor, Stephen J. & Williams, Eric S. & Savage, Grant T., 2006. "Beyond rankings: Using cognitive mapping to understand what health care journals represent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 1192-1204, March.
    20. Marc Paul Verhougstraete & Sydney Brothers & Wayne Litaker & A Denene Blackwood & Rachel Noble, 2015. "Lessons Learned from Implementing a Wet Laboratory Molecular Training Workshop for Beach Water Quality Monitoring," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1084-:d:1028431. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.