Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-22T01:27:06.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transfer of Information and Its Impact on Medical Practice: The U.S. Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Itzhak Jacoby  and
Martin Rose
Itzhak Jacoby
Affiliation:
Office of Medical Applications of Research National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.
Martin Rose
Affiliation:
Office of Medical Applications of Research National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since 1977, the Consensus Development Program of the Office of Medical Applications of Research (OMAR), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has sponsored more than 50 consensus development conferences (CDCs) on the safety and efficacy of important biomedical technologies. The aim of these conferences, described fully elsewhere (4), is to inform the health care community, and to some extent the public, of the status of emerging biomedical technologies and the need for change in the use of existing health-related technologies. OMAR has therefore, worked diligently to publicize conference findings among these audiences. Further, OMAR has sought to improve the effectiveness of these transfer activities by conducting assessments of the impact of CDCs on their primary audience, U.S. physicians.

Type
Technology Assessment: Policy, Clinical, and Methodological Issues
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 107 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

1.Chen, M., Daley, H. M. et al. , The diffusion of medical technologies in a practitioner community. Report of the Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University, April 1983.Google Scholar
2.Jacoby, I.Biomedical technology: Information dissemination and the NIH Consensus Development process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1983, 5, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Jacoby, I. Direct mailing as a means of dissemination. NIH consensus statements: A Comparative Study. In press.Google Scholar
4.Jacoby, I.The Consensus Development Program of the NIH. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kahan, J. P., Kanouse, D. E., & Winkler, J. D. Variations in the content and style of NIH consensus statements, 1973–1983. The Rand Corporation, 1984, N-2237-NIH.Google Scholar
6. Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH. Guidelines for the Selection and Management of Consensus Development Conferences, May 1983.Google Scholar
7.Pauker, S. G., Decision Analysis as a Synthetic Tool for Achieving Consensus in Technology Assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, this issue, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar