Health Care Technology Adoption and Diffusion in a Social Context

Abstract

This article highlights mechanisms that may further sustainable technological development for the 21st century. The distributional effects associated with the adoption and diffusion of health care technologies are addressed wherein the capacity to capitalize on the health gains from the adoption of technology varies in society. These effects are caused by the actions of individuals as they segment themselves into distinct social groups. The circumstances under which social institutions are further segmented are explored and may motivate public sector limits on the funding for and diffusion of health care technologies. Safety and efficacy benchmarks are necessary but insufficient conditions for sustainability as product advantage on grounds of cost-effectiveness must also be demonstrated. Furthermore, given the substantial role played by public sector decision makers in purchasing health care technologies, the distributional consequences associated with the uptake and diffusion of technology need to be gauged by product designers and those responsible for marketing.

Keywords

adoption diffusion health care settings health care technology health policy social context

References

Armstrong, D. (1983). Political anatomy of the body: Medical knowledge in Britain: The twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Armstrong, D. (1995). The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness, 17, 393-404.

Bentham, J. (1879). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon .

Canadian Institute for Health Information. ( 2004). National health expenditure trends, 1975-2004. Ottawa: Author.

Coyte, P.C. , & McKeever, P. (2001). Home care in Canada: Passing the buck. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 33(2), 11-25.

Dolan, P. (2001). Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Analysis, 9(1), 65-76.

Feldstein, M.S. (1969). Mean-variance analysis in the theory of liquidity preference and portfolio selection. Review of Economic Studies , 36, 5-12.

Hauck, K. , Smith, P.C. , & Goddard, M. (2003). The economics of priority setting for health care: A literature review. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

Holmes, D. , & Gastaldo, D. (2002). Nursing as means of govern-mentality. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(6), 557-565.

10.

Little, I.M.D. (2003). A critique of welfare economics. New York: Oxford University Press.

11.

Markowitz, H.M. (1959). Portfolio selection. New York : John Wiley.

12.

McKeever, P. , & Coyte, P.C. (2002, March 25). Here, there and everywhere. University of Toronto Bulletin, p. A16.

13.

Mill, J.S. (1848). Principles of political economy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

14.

Mooney, G. (1998). Beyond health outcomes: The benefits of health care. Health Care Analysis, 6(2), 99-105.

15.

Nord, E. , Pinto, J.L. , Richardson, J. , Menzel, P. , & Ubel, P. (1999). Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics , 8(1), 25-39.

16.

Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 11-46.

17.

Sen, A. ( 1970). Collective choice and social welfare. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

18.

Sen, A. ( 1992). Inequality reexamined. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

19.

Tobin, J. (1969). Comment on Borch and Feldstein. Review of Economic Studies, 36, 13-14.

20.

Wagstaff, A. (1991). QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics, 10(1), 21-41.

21.

Winch, S. , Creedy, D. , & Chaboyer, W. (2002). Governing nursing conduct: The rise of evidence-based practice. Nursing Inquiry, 9(3), 156-161.

22.

Wiseman, V. (1998). From selfish individualism to citizenship: Avoiding health economics' reputed “dead end.” Health Care Analysis, 6(2), 113-122.