Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T13:21:04.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of the Use of Multiple Technologies in Neonatal Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Rosimary T. Almeida ,
Ronney R. Panerai ,
Manoel de Carvalho  and
José Maria A. Lopes
Rosimary T. Almeida
Affiliation:
COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Ronney R. Panerai
Affiliation:
COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Manoel de Carvalho
Affiliation:
Fernandes Figueira Institute
José Maria A. Lopes
Affiliation:
Fernandes Figueira Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of 53 different technologies was studied in 82 patients in a neonatal intensive care unit. Using a coefficient of similarity based on the utilization pattern of these technologies, it was possible to identify five clusters of patients that can be correlated with the primary diagnostic groups and such other variables as birth weight (BW), gestational age, length of stay (LOS), and weight gain. Four interdependent models were identified by multiple regression analysis. The number of different therapeutic technologies applied to these patients can be explained (r = 0.67) by their Apgar scores, gestational age, and an index of severity of illness based on the diagnostic group. The number of different diagnostic technologies used is directly related to the number of therapies delivered (r = 0.63) and, jointly with BW, determines LOS (r = 0.73). Finally, weight gain is explained by LOS and BW (r = 0.65).

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Winter 1991 , pp. 22 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Abel-Smith, B.Funding health for all – Is insurance the answer? World Health Forum, 1986, 7, 3–31.Google Scholar
2.Anderberg, M. R.Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
3.Attinger, E. O., & Panerai, R. B.Transferability of technology assessment with special emphasis on the third world. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 545–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bennett, K. Y., Feeny, D., Guyatt, G. H., Tugwell, P., Drummond, M. F.Guidelines for health technology assessment: The efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of neonatal intensive care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 873–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Budetti, P., McManus, P., Barrand, N. et al. , The costs and effectiveness of neonatal intensive care, Health Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, PB 82–101 411. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 08 1981.Google Scholar
6.Drummond, M. F. Review of evaluative studies of intensive care for very low birthweight infants: Social and economic aspects. In Kaminski, M. et al. (eds.), Perinatal care delivery systems. Description and evaluation in EC countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 265–78.Google Scholar
7.Guillemin, J. Priceless lives and medical costs: The case of newborn intensive care. In Roth, J. A., (ed.), Research in the sociology of health care, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984, 115–34.Google Scholar
8.Kramer, M. S.Determinants of low birth weight: Methodological assessment and meta analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1987, 65, 663–737.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Panerai, R. B., Evaluation of medical technology in terms of health outcome. Proceedings PAHO/WHO/FDA International Conference of Medical Device Regulatory Authorities, Washington, DC, 1986.Google Scholar
10.Pollack, M. M., Yeh, T. S., Ruttiman, U. E., Hoebrook, P. R., & Fields, A. I.Evaluation of pediatric intensive care. Critical Care Medicine, 1984, 12, 376–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Neonatal Intensive Care for Low Birth weight Infants: Costs and effectiveness (Health Technology Case Study 38), OTA-HCS-38, Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 12 1987.Google Scholar
12.Wishart, D.An algorithm for hierarchical classification. Biometrics, 1969, 25, 165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar