Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:56:46.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defusing Technology: Technology Diffusion in British Columbia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Arminée Kazanjian  and
Kathryn Friesen
Arminée Kazanjian
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Kathryn Friesen
Affiliation:
British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to explore the diffusion of the selected technologies in one Canadian province (British Columbia), two administrative data sets were analyzed. The data included over 40 million payment records for each fiscal year on medical services provided to British Columbia residents (2,968,769 in 1988) and information on physical facilities, services, and personnel from 138 hospitals in the province. Three specific time periods were examined in each data set, starting with 1979–80 and ending with the most current data available at the time. The detailed retrospective analysis of laboratory and imaging technologies provides historical data in three areas of interest: (a) patterns of diffusion and volume of utilization, (b) institutional profile, and (c) provider profile. The framework for the analysis focused, where possible, on the examination of determinants of diffusion that may be amenable to policy influence.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1993 , pp. 46 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.Anderson, G., et al. Cholesterol screening: Evaluating alternative strategies. HPRU Discussion Series 89:10D, Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia, 08 1989.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. The decrease in coronary heart disease mortality. Status and perspectives on the role of cholesterol. American Journal of Cardiology, 1984, 54, 35C–41C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anonymous. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. I. Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Anonymous. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. II. The relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 365–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Atkins, L.Market studies show MRI has potential to exceed growth of CT in mobile technology. Interview. Review—Federation of American Hospitals, 1985, 18, 32–33, 36–38.Google Scholar
6.Banta, H. D., et al. Toward rational technology in medicine, considerations for health policy, vol. 5. New York: Springer Series on Health Care and Society, 1981.Google Scholar
7.Battista, R. N.Innovation and diffusion of health-related technologies: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Belsey, R., et al. Evaluation of a laboratory system intended for use in physicians’ offices. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 353-56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Blendon, R. J., et al. The hidden cost of ‘little ticket’ advances. Business and Health, 1984, 1, 12–16.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Canadian Consensus Conference on Cholesterol. Preliminary report. 03 9–11, 1988, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
11.Cassaday, M., et al. Capsule chemistry technology for high-speech clinical chemistry analysis. Clinical Chemistry, 1985, 31, 1453–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Consensus on cholesterol; British Columbia implementation strategy. Vancouver, British Columbia: Heart and Stroke Foundation, 1988.Google Scholar
13.Daly, J.Technological innovation and the labour process in health care. Social Science and Medicine, 1989, 28, 1149–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Deber, R. B., Thompson, G. G., & Leatt, P.Technology acquisition in Canada, control in a regulated market. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Ellencweig, A. Y.Development of medical care technology. The case of Israel. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 255–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Elliot, A.Capital equipment. Hidden costs of high technology. Health and Social Service Journal, 1986, 96, 82.Google Scholar
17.Evans, R. G.The fiscal management of medical technology: The case of Canada. In Banta, H. D. (ed.), Resources for health: Technology assessment for policy making. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1982, 178–99.Google Scholar
18.Evans, R. W.Economic costs of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 1984, 8, 200–03.Google Scholar
19.Feeny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.). Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and public policy. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
20.Fineberg, H. V.Clinical chemistries: The high cost of low-cost diagnostic tests. In Altman, S. H. & Blendon, R. (eds.), Medical technology: The culprit behind health care costs? Proceedings of the 1977 Sun Valley Forum on National Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publication No. (PHS) 79–3216, 1977, 144–65.Google Scholar
21.Garber, A. M., & Gluck, M. E.Costs and effectiveness of cholesterol screening in the elderly. Series on Preventive Health Services Under Medicare. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 04 1989.Google Scholar
22.Goel, V., et al. Nonionic contrast media: Economic analysis and health policy development. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1989, 140, 389–95.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Hendrick, R. E., et al. MR imaging technology: Maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from a single tissue. Radiology, 1985, 156, 749–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Hospital Insurance Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, Chapter 180(11).Google Scholar
25.Institute of Medicine. Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use, Division of Health Sciences Policy, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
26.Kambayashi, S.The impact of the laboratory's multiparametric analyser on the medical technology and health expenditure in Japan. Social Science and Medicine, 1985, 21, 1125–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Levitt, J.The growth of technology and corporate profit-making in the clinical laboratories. Journal of Public Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1984, 8, 732–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Lifshitz, M. S., et al. Du Pont dimension. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 1989, 3, 103–04.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Lifshitz, M. S., et al. Talking about technology. Beckman Synchron CX3. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 1989, 3, 53–54.Google ScholarPubMed
30.Martin, B. G.Cost containment: Strategies and responsibilities of the laboratory manager. Clinical Laboratory Medicine, 1985, 5, 697–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.McGivney, W. T.Regulatory, coverage, and reimbursement changes. Implications for diffusion of technology in radiation. Investigative Radiology, 1988, 23, 795–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.National Academy of Sciences. Medical technology and the health care system: A study of the diffusion of equipment embodied technology—A report by the Committee on Technology and Health Care. Washington, DC: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 1979.Google Scholar
33.Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
34.Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology, background paper number 2: Case studies of medical technologies. Background paper number 4: Cost effectiveness of automated multichannel chemistry analyzers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
35.Province of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Health annual report 1987/88. Victoria, British Columbia: British Columbia Ministry of Health, 1988.Google Scholar
36.Rutten, F. F. H., Greep, J. M., & Haan, G. H. M. G.Public control of the diffusion of health technology. In Rutten, F. F. H. & Reiser, S. J. (eds.), The economics of medical technology: Proceedings of an international conference on economics of medical technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Statistics Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, Chapter 392(21).Google Scholar
38. United States National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (NCEP). Panel report, 1987.Google Scholar
39.Winkler, M. L.Body MRI: The state of use. Administrative Radiology, 1988, 7, 71.Google Scholar