Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

It's Time To Rethink Health Care Technology Assessment

  • Clifford Goodman (a1)

Abstract

Health care technology assessment is broadly and ambiguously interpreted, diluting its role. It is time to recast the field. We must elucidate it in the contemporary context of health inquiry, explicitly relating it to such pursuits as quality assurance, health services research, effectiveness research, medical informatics, and technological innovation.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1.Archibald, K.Three views of the expert's role in policymaking: Systems analysis, incremen-talism, and the clinical approach. Policy Science, 1970, 1, 7386.
2.Arnstein, S. A.Technology assessment: Opportunities and obstacles. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1977, SMC-7, 571–82.
3.Banta, H. D., & Andreasen, P. B.The political dimension in health care technology assessment programs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 115–23.
4.Banta, H. D., Behney, C. J., & Willems, J. S.Toward rational technology in medicine. New York: Springer, 1981.
5.Banta, H. D., & Thacker, S. B.The case for reassessment of health care technology: Once is not enough. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264, 235–40.
6.Barry, M. J., Mulley, A. G., Fowler, F. J., et al. Watchful waiting vs. immediate transurethral resection for symptomatic prostatism: The importance of patients’ preferences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3010–17.
7.Baum, M., Zilka, K., & Houghton, J.Ethics of clinical research: Lessons for the future. British Medical Journal, 1989, 299, 251–53.
8.Bergner, M.Quality of life, health status, and clinical research. Medical Care, 1989, 27, S14856.
9.Berwick, D. M.Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 320, 5356.
10.Berwick, D. M., & Wald, D. L.Hospital leaders’ opinions of the HCFA mortality data. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 247–49.
11.Bloom, B. S.Does it work? The outcomes of medical interventions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 326–32.
12.Bonair, A., Rosenfield, P., & Tengvald, K.Medical technologies in developing countries: Issues of technology development, transfer, diffusion and use. Social Science & Medicine, 1989, 28, 769–81.
13.Brook, R. H.Health services research: Is it good for you and me? Academic Medicine, 1989, 4, 124–30.
14.Brook, R. H., & Lohr, K. N.Efficacy, effectiveness, variations, and quality: Boundary-crossing research. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 710–22.
15.Brooks, H., & Bowers, R.The assessment of technology. Science, 1970, 222, 1320.
16.Bunge, M.Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture, 1966, 7, 329–47.
17.Byar, D. P., Schoenfeld, D. A., Green, S. B., et al. Design considerations for AIDS trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 1343–38.
18.Chassin, M. R., Kosecoff, J., Park, R. E., et al. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 533–37.
19.Coates, J.Some methods and techniques for comprehensive impact assessments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1974, 6, 341–57.
20.Coates, V. T.Technology and public policy: Summary report. Washington DC: Geo Washington University, 1972.
21.Coates, V. T.President's message. Journal of the International Society for Technoloy Assessment, 1976, 2, 46.
22.Cochrane, A. L.Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972.
23.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T.Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1979.
24.Cotton, P.Is there still too much extrapolation from data on middle-aged white men? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 1049–50.
25.Cotton, P.Examples abound of gaps in medical knowledge because of groups excluded from scientific study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 1051–52
26.Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Gender disparities in clinical decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association 1991, 266, 559–62.
27.Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L.Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 1989, 27, S25468.
28.Donabedian, A.Quality assessment and assurance: Unity of purpose, diversity of means Inquiry, 1988, 25, 173–92.
29.Eddy, D. M. Should we change the rules for evaluating medical technologies? In Gelijns, A. C. (ed.), Medical innovation at the crossroads: Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990, 117–34.
30.Elliot, D., & Elliot, R.The control of technology. London: Wykeham Publications, 1976.
31.Ellwood, P. M.Outcomes management: A technology of patient experience. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 1549–56.
32.Evans, R. W., Manninen, D. L., Overcast, T. D., et al. The National Heart Transplantation Study: Final report, vols. 1–5. Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1984.
33.Feeny, D. New health technologies: Their effect on health and the cost of health care. In Feeny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency, and public policy. Montreal, Quebec: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986 524.
34.Flagle, C. Technology assessment in the literature of medical informatics. In Flagle, C., Gremy, F., & Perry, S.(eds.), Assessment of medical informatics technology. Proceedings: Joint working conference of the International Medical Informatics Association, the International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care, and the Ecole Nationale de la Santé Publique. Rennes Cedex (France): Éditions ENSP, 1991, 165–77.
35.Flood, A. B.Peaks and pits of using large data bases to measure quality of care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 253–62.
36.Fuchs, V. R., & Garber, A. M.The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673–77.
37.Galbraith, J.The new industrial state. New York: The New American Library, 1977.
38.Gelijns, A. C. (ed.). Medical innovation at the crossroads: Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
39.Gendron, B.Technology and the human condition. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1977.
40.Goodman, C.A practical guide to technology assessment. Business & Health 1987 4(10) 1419.
41.Goodman, C. (ed.). Medical technology assessment directory. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.
42.Goodman, C. S. Profiles of 20 technology assessment programs. In Institute of Medicine, Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985, 255489
43.Hammond, K. R., Mumpower, J., Dennis, R. L., et al. Fundamental obstacles to the use of scientific information in public policy making. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1983, 24, 287–97.
44.Healy, B.Women's health, public welfare. Journal of the American Medical Associating 1991, 266, 566–68.
45.Heithoff, K. A., & Lohr, K. N. (eds.). Effectiveness and outcomes in health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
46.Hisashige, A., Sakurai, T., & Kaihara, S. Medical technology assessment and medical information technology in Japan: Present and future. In C., Flagle, F., Gremy, & S., Perry (eds.), Assessment of medical informatics technology. Proceedings: Joint working conference of the International Medical Informatics Association, the International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care, and the École Nationalé de la Santé Publique. Rennes Cedex (France): Éditions ENSP, 1991, 509–19.
47.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.
48.Institute of Medicine. The NLM and health care technology assessment: Improving the information. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
49.Institute of Medicine. Core Committee on HCFA Effectiveness Initiative. Promise and limitations of effectiveness and outcomes research. In Heithoff, K. A. & Lohr, K. N. (eds.), Effectiveness and outcomes in health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990, 818.
50.Jönsson, B. What can Americans learn from Europeans? In Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Health care systems in transition: The search for efficiency. Paris: OECD Social Policy Studies, no. 7, 1990, 87101.
51.Kahn, K. L., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, J. R., et al. Measuring the clinical appropriateness of the use of a procedure: Can we do it? Medical Care, 1988, 26, 415–22.
52.Kikuchi, M.status of medical engineering technology assessment in Japan. Frontiers of Medical and Biological Engineering, 1991, 3, 315.
53.Lara, M. E., & Goodman, C. (eds.). National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: Report of a pilot study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
54.Leape, L. L., Park, R. E., Solomon, D. H., et al. Does inappropriate use explain small-area variations in the use of health care services? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 669–72.
55.Lohr, K. N. (ed.). Breast cancer: Setting priorities for effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
56.Lohr, K. N., & Rettig, R. A. (eds.). Quality of care and technology assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.
57.Mckie, J.Management of medical technology in developing countries. Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 1990, 12, 259–61.
58.McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C. Jr, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306, 1259–62.
59.McPherson, K., Wennberg, J. E., Hovind, O. B., et al. Small-area variation in the use of common surgical procedures: An international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 1310–14.
60.Merigan, T. C.You can teach an old dog new tricks: How AIDS trials are pioneering new strategies. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 1341–43.
61.Mosteller, F., & Falotico-Taylor, J. (eds). Quality of life and technology assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
62.National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Public Engineering Policy. A study of technology assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
63.Neuhauser, D.Ernest Amory Codman, M.D., and end results of medical care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 307–25.
64.O'Brien, D. M., & Marchand, D. A. Politics, technology, and technology assessment. In O'Brien, D. M. & Marchand, D. A. (eds.), The politics of technology assessment: Institutions, processes, and policy disputes. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1982.
65.Palca, J.Women left out at NIH: News. Science, 1990, 248, 1601–02.
66.Park, R. E., Brook, R. H., Kosecoff, J., et al. Explaining variations in hospital death rates. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264, 484–90.
67.Pauker, S. G., & McNeil, B. J.Impact of patient preferences on the selection of therapy. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1981, 34, 7786.
68. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. 1988–1990 annual survey report, U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Washington, DC.
69.Porter, A. L., Rossini, F. A., Carpenter, S. R., & Roper, A. T.A guidebook for technology assessment and impact analysis. New York: North Holland, 1980.
70.Relman, A. S.Assessment of medical practices: A simple proposal. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 153–54.
71.Roper, W. L., Winkenwerder, W., Hackbarth, G. M., & Krakauer, H.Effectiveness in health care: An initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 1197–202.
72.Rossini, F. A., Carpenter, S. R., Havick, J., et al. Multiple technology assessments. Journal of the International Society for Technology Assessment, 1976, 2, 2128.
73.Sackett, D. L.Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1979, 32, 5163.
74.Schwartz, J. S., & Lurie, N.Assessment of medical outcomes: New opportunities for achieving a long sought-after objective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 333–39.
75.Sox, H., Stern, S., Owens, D., & Abrams, H. L.Assessment of diagnostic technology in health care: Rationale, methods, problems, and directions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
76.Steinwachs, D. M.Application of health status measures in policy research. Medical Care, 1989, 27, S12–26.
77.Sullivan, L. W., & Hays, L. B.Medicare hospital mortality information, 1986, 1987,1988. Washington, DC: Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989 (HCFA publication 00701).
78.Talbot, J. L.Climbing the ladder. Second Source Biomedical, 1990, 1(September/October), 2831.
79.Temple, R.Problems in the use of large data sets to assess effectiveness. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 211–19.
80.Tugwell, P., Bennett, K., Feeny, D., et al. A framework for the evaluation of technology: The technology assessment iterative loop. In Feeny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency, and public policy. Montreal, Quebec: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986, 4156.
81.U.S. Congress. Public Law 101–239. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989.
82.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A discursive dictionary of health care. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
83.U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Technology assessment. Statement of Emilio Q. Daddario, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science Research and Development. 90th Congress, 1st session, Washington, DC, 1967.
84.U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
85.U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
86.U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.
87.U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Life-sustaining technologies and the elderly. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987.
88.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCPR grant awards, fiscal year 1990. AHCPR Program Note. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1990.
89.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Care Financing Administration, Office of the Actuary. Data from the Office of National Cost Estimates, 1990.
90.US. Department of Health and Human Services, National Library of Medicine. The basics of searching MEDLINE. Bethesda, MD: 1989 (PB89–146179).
91.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Library of Medicine. Medical subject headings-annotated alphabetic list, 1991. Bethesda, MD: 1990 (PB91–100008).
92.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Library of Medicine. Medical subject headings-Tree structures, 1991. Bethesda, MD: 1990 (PB91–100016).
93.Wennberg, J. E.Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Affairs, 1984, 3(Summer), 632.
94.Wennberg, J. E. What is outcomes research? In Gelijns, A. C. (ed.), Medical innovation at the crossroads: Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990, 3346.
95.Wennberg, J. E., Bunker, J. P., & Barnes, B.The need for assessing the outcome of common medical practices. Annual Review of Public Health, 1980, 1, 277–95.
96.Wennberg, J. E., & Gittelsohn, A.Variation in medical care among small areas. Scientific American, 1982, 246, 811–14.

It's Time To Rethink Health Care Technology Assessment

  • Clifford Goodman (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed