Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:50:53.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying New Health Care Technologies in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Andrew Stevens ,
Glenn Robert  and
John Gabbay
Andrew Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Glenn Robert
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
John Gabbay
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We aimed to establish a 1996 baseline of new health care technologies that are predicted to have an impact on the United Kingdom's National Health Service in the next five years. One thousand and ninty-nine health care technologies were identified from a variety of sources. Further work will attempt to determine the most efficient method of identifying and monitoring new health care technologies.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 59 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Improving America's health through health service research. Bethesda, MD: U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 1991.Google Scholar
2.Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. An international inventory of health care technology assessment reports and projects, 1st ed.Ottawa: CCHOTA, 1992.Google Scholar
3.Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Directory of health technology assessment projects in Canada, 3rd ed.Ottawa: CCHOTA, 1994.Google Scholar
4.Comroe, J. H. & Dripps, R. D.Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Science, 1976, 192, 105–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.ECRI. Health technology forecast 1995. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI, 1995.Google Scholar
6.Freiman, F. P.The rate of adoption of new procedures among physicians. Medical Care 1985, 23, 939–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Hadridge, P., & Hodgson, T.The Hemingford Scenario: Alternative futures for health and health care. Oxford: Oxford and Anglia Regional Health Authority, 1994.Google Scholar
8.Huerta, J. A.The role of technology in rising healthcare costs. Journal of Clinical Engineering 1995, 20, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Institute of Public Health. Cambridge health futures: Role and contribution. Cambridge: Institute of Public Health, 1994.Google Scholar
10.Kahane, A.Global scenarios for the energy industry: Challenge and response. London: Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd, 1991.Google Scholar
11.Lara, M. E., & Goodman, C. (eds.). National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: Report of a pilot study. Washington, DC: Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine, 1990.Google Scholar
12.Leufkens, H., Haajar-Ruskamp, F., Bakkar, A. & Dukes, G.Scenario analysis of the future of medication. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 1137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Lewit, E. M.The diffusion of surgical technology: Who’s on first? Journal of Health Economics 1986, 5, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Moloney, M. W., & Rogers, D. E.Medical technology: A different view of the contentious debate over costs. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 1413–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.PRISM. Foresight in science. An experiment in the field of cardiovascular research: Project overview, report no. 3. London: The Wellcome Trust, 1995.Google Scholar
16. Review 1995. The Lancet, 1995, 346(suppl.).Google Scholar
17.Robert, G., Stevens, A., Gabbay, J., & Bliss, E.Summary report of the Forecasting Secretariat to the National Standing Group on Health Technology. Wessex Institute of Public Health Medicine, University of Southampton, 1995.Google Scholar
18.Rogers, E. M.Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed.New York: Free Press, 1983.Google Scholar
19.Rosen, R.Introducing New Medical Technologies: What role for Purchasers?. Membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine Part II Examination, 1995.Google Scholar
20.Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Muir Gray, J. A., et al. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 1996, 312, 71–72.Google Scholar
21.Scenario Commission on Future Healthcare Technology. Anticipating and assessing health care technology, Vol. 1: General considerations and policy conclusions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
22.Stocking, B.Medical Technology in the UK. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.U.K. Department of Health. Research for health: A research and development strategy for the National Health Service. London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
24.U.K. Department of Health. Report of the Genetics Research Advisory Group. London: HMSO, 1995.Google Scholar
25.U.K. Department of Health. Report of the National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Programme, 1995. London: HMSO, 1995.Google Scholar
26.U.K. Office of Science & Technology. Technology foresight, Vol. 2: Progress through partnership 4. London: HMSO, 1995.Google Scholar
27.U.S. Congressional Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Report and recommendations to Congress. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.Google Scholar
28.ten Velden, G.Early identification by the Health Council of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Health Council of the Netherlands, 1995.Google Scholar
29.Whitted, G. S. Medical technology diffusion and its effects on the modern hospital. Health Care Management Review, 1981, Spring, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar