IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i8p1006-1015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision to Adopt Medical Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Taffet Gold
  • Kimberly Pitrelli
  • Mary Katherine Hayes
  • Madhuvanti Mahadeo Murphy

Abstract

Objective. To understand decision making concerning adoption and nonadoption of accelerated partial breast radiotherapy (RT) prior to long-term randomized trial evidence. Methods. A total of 36 radiation oncologists and surgeons were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling strategies from September 2010 through January 2013. Semistructured phone interviews were conducted and audio-recorded and lasted 20–45 minutes. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a framework approach, iteratively exploring key concepts and emerging issues raised by subjects. Interviews were transcribed and imported into Atlas.ti v6. Transcripts were independently coded by 3 researchers shortly after each interview, followed by consensus development on each coded transcript. Barriers and facilitators of adoption, practice patterns, and informational/educational sources concerning accelerated partial breast RT were all assessed to determine major themes. Results. Nearly half of physicians were surgeons (47%), and half were radiation oncologists (53%), with 61% overall in urban settings. Twenty-nine of the 36 physicians interviewed used brachytherapy-based partial breast RT. Five major factors were involved in physicians’ decisions to adopt accelerated partial breast RT: facilitators encouraging adoption (e.g., enthusiastic colleagues and patient convenience), financial and prestige incentives, pressures to adopt (e.g., potential declines in referrals), judgment concerning acceptable level of scientific evidence, and barriers (e.g., not having appropriate machinery or referral mechanism in place). If technology was adopted, clinical guideline adherence varied. Conclusions. Technology adoption is based on financial and social pressures, along with often-limited scientific evidence and what seems “best†for patients. For technology adoption and diffusion to be rational and evidence-based, we must encourage appropriate financial payment models to curb use outside of research studies and promote development of additional treatment registries until sufficient evidence is gathered.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Taffet Gold & Kimberly Pitrelli & Mary Katherine Hayes & Madhuvanti Mahadeo Murphy, 2014. "Decision to Adopt Medical Technology," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1006-1015, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:8:p:1006-1015
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14541679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14541679
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14541679?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Skinner & Douglas Staiger, 2007. "Technology Adoption from Hybrid Corn to Beta-Blockers," NBER Chapters, in: Hard-to-Measure Goods and Services: Essays in Honor of Zvi Griliches, pages 545-570, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    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. Renata Walczak & Magdalena Kludacz-Alessandri & Liliana Hawrysz, 2022. "Use of Telemedicine Technology among General Practitioners during COVID-19: A Modified Technology Acceptance Model Study in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Cathy J. Bradley & David Neumark & Lauryn Saxe Walker, 2017. "The Effect of Primary Care Visits on Health Care Utilization: Findings from a Randomized Controlled Trial," NBER Working Papers 24100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bradley, Cathy J. & Neumark, David & Walker, Lauryn Saxe, 2018. "The effect of primary care visits on other health care utilization: A randomized controlled trial of cash incentives offered to low income, uninsured adults in Virginia," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 121-133.

    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. Bonatti, Alessandro & Hörner, Johannes, 2017. "Learning to disagree in a game of experimentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 234-269.
    2. Leila Agha & David Molitor, 2018. "The Local Influence of Pioneer Investigators on Technology Adoption: Evidence from New Cancer Drugs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(1), pages 29-44, March.
    3. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2016. "Health Care Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2110-2144, August.
    4. Feng, Yao, 2011. "Local spillovers and learning from neighbors: Evidence from durable adoptions in rural China," MPRA Paper 33924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Diego A. Comin & Bart Hobijn, 2009. "The CHAT Dataset," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-035, Harvard Business School.
    6. Moscone, F. & Tosetti, E., 2010. "Testing for error cross section independence with an application to US health expenditure," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 283-291, September.
    7. Baltagi, Badi H. & Moscone, Francesco, 2010. "Health care expenditure and income in the OECD reconsidered: Evidence from panel data," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 804-811, July.
    8. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    9. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    10. Comin, Diego & Rode, Johannes, 2013. "From Green Users to Green Voters," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63678, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Jaime Moore & Matthew Haemer & Nazrat Mirza & Ying Z Weatherall & Joan Han & Caren Mangarelli & Mary Jane Hawkins & Stavra Xanthakos & Robert Siegel, 2019. "Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    12. Kevin Mertz & Romil F. Shah & Sara L. Eppler & Jeffrey Yao & Marc Safran & Ariel Palanca & Serena S. Hu & Michael Gardner & Derek F. Amanatullah & Robin N. Kamal, 2020. "A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 766-773, August.
    13. Sarah-Maude Deschênes & Marie-Pierre Gagnon & France Légaré & Annie Lapointe & Stéphane Turcotte & Sophie Desroches, 2013. "Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    14. Clarissa Hsu & David T. Liss & Dominick L. Frosch & Emily O. Westbrook & David Arterburn, 2017. "Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 113-126, January.
    15. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2013. "Healthcare Exceptionalism? Productivity and Allocation in the U.S. Healthcare Sector," NBER Working Papers 19200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Moscone, Francesco & Tosetti, Elisa & Vittadini, Giorgio, 2009. "Social Interaction in Patients'�Hospital Choice: Evidences from Italy," MPRA Paper 17783, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    18. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    19. Ludwig, Jens & Marcotte, Dave E. & Norberg, Karen, 2009. "Anti-depressants and suicide," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 659-676, May.
    20. Moscone, Francesco & Tosetti, Elisa & Costantini, Marco & Ali, Maged, 2013. "The impact of scientific research on health care: Evidence from the OECD countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 325-332.

    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:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:8:p:1006-1015. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.