Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:14:09.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Requirements for Technology: As Seen by Providers of Primary Health Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

John Horder  and
David Metcalfe
John Horder
Affiliation:
Royal Free Hospital Medical School
David Metcalfe
Affiliation:
Manchester University Medical School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is concerned with principles that might help to ensure that procedures and tools used in primary care are appropriate to people's needs and expectations. It urges attention, not first to technology, but to the broad range of purposes served by primary care and to the relevance of procedures to them. Other criteria for ensuring appropriateness are also proposed.

Type
Special Section: Technology in Primary Care and Ambulatory Settings
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 91 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.Chaturvedi, S. K.Delivery pack for traditional birth attendants. Lancet, 1978, ii, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Cherkin, D. C., Rosenblatt, R. A., Gary, Hart L., Schneeweiss, R., & Logerfo, J.The use of resources by residency trained family physicians and general internists. Medical Care, 1987, 25, 455–469.Google Scholar
3.De Kadt, E., & Segall, M. Health needs and health services in rural Ghana. I. D. S. Health Group. In Social Science and Medicine, special issue. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.Google Scholar
4.Donabedian, A. The methods and findings of quality assessment and monitoring: An illustrated analysis. Exploration in quality assessment and monitoring, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor, MI; Health Administration Press, 1985.Google Scholar
5.Favin, M., Bradford, B., & Cubular, D.Maternal health in developing countries. Midwifery, 1985, 1, 75–85.Google Scholar
6.Feinstein, A. R.Clinical judgement. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1967.Google Scholar
7.Hampton, J. R., Harrison, M. J. G., Mitchell, J. R. A., Pritchard, J. S., & Seymour, C.Relative contributions of history-taking, physical examination, and laboratory investigations to diagnosis and management of medical outpatients. British Medical Journal, 1975, 2, 486–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Horder, J. P. Cost-effectiveness of hospital versus community care. In Binns, T. B. & Firth, M. (eds.), Health care provision under financial constraint. London: Royal Society of Medicine Services, 1988.Google Scholar
9.Kaprio, L. A.Primary health care in Europe. Copenhagen, Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization, 1979.Google Scholar
10.Kastor, J. A.Pacemaker mania. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 182–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.King, R. C.Technology and the doctor-patient relationship. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 11–18.Google Scholar
12.Manning, W. G., Leibowitz, A., Goldberg, G. A., Rogers, W. H., & Newhouse, J. P.A controlled trial of the effect of pre-paid group practice on use of services. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 1505-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.McKeown, T.The role of medicine. Dream, mirage or nemesis? London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1976.Google Scholar
14.McWhinney, I. R.Beyond diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 1972, 287, 384–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.McWhinney, I. R.The foundations of family medicine. Canadian Family Physician, 1969, 1, 10–20.Google Scholar
16.Medalie, J. H. Dimensions of family medicine and practice. In Medalie, J. H. (ed.), Family medicine. Principles and practice. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1978.Google Scholar
17.Rabkin, M. T. Cost-effectiveness of hospital versus community care. A United States view. In Binns, T. B. & Firth, M. (eds.), Health care provision under financial constraint. London: Royal Society of Medicine Services, 1988.Google Scholar
18.Reiser, S. J.Medicine and the reign of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1978.Google Scholar
19.Sanazaro, R. J., & Williamson, J. W.A classification of physician performance in internal medicine. Journal of Medical Education, 1968, 43, 389–97.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Leeuwenhorst European Working Party. A description of the work of the general practitioner. London: the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1974.Google Scholar
21.Sjönell, G., Relationship between use of increased primary health care and other outpatient care in a Swedish urban area. Stockholm: Sunbyberg, 1984.Google Scholar
22.Sussman, M. B., Caplan, E. K., Haug, M. R., & Stern, M. R.The walking patient: A study in outpatient care. Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
23.White, P. D.Errors in the interpretation of cardiovascular symptoms and signs. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1936, 9, 1703–07.Google Scholar
24.Williams, B., & Yumkella, F. Evaluation of the training of traditional birth attendants. In Maclagas, A. M. & Simons, J. (eds.), The potential of the traditional birth attendant. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1986.Google Scholar
25.World Health Organization. Alma-Ata 1978. Primary health care. Report of the international conference. Geneva: World Health Organizaton, 1978.Google Scholar
26.World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet, 1985, ii, 436-37.Google Scholar