4.4 Review

The determinants of medical technology adoption in different decisional systems: A systematic literature review

期刊

HEALTH POLICY
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 230-242

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.01.005

关键词

Systematic review; Determinants; Innovation; Medical technology; Decision-making systems

资金

  1. European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme (Project MEDTECHTA) [305694]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of determinants of adoption of new medical technology have failed to coalesce into coherent knowledge. A flaw obscuring strong patterns may be a common habit of treating a wide range of health care innovations as a generic technology. We postulate three decisional systems that apply to different medical technologies with distinctive expertise, interest, and authority: medical-individualistic, fiscal-managerial, and strategic-institutional decisional systems. This review aims to examine the determinants of the adoption of medical technologies based on the corresponding decision-making system. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that analyzed factors facilitating or inhibiting the adoption of medical technologies. In total, 65 studies published between 1974 and 2014 met our inclusion criteria. These studies contained 688 occurrences of variables that were used to examine the adoption decisions, and we subsequently condensed these variables to 62 determinants in four main categories: organizational, individual, environmental, and innovation-related. The determinants and their empirical association with adoption were grouped and analyzed by the three decision-making systems. Although we did not identify substantial differences across the decision-making systems in terms of the direction of the determinants' influence on adoption, a clear pattern emerged in terms of the categories of determinants that were targeted in different decision-making systems. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据