Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:00:12.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Devidas Menon  and
Deborah Marshall
Devidas Menon
Affiliation:
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment
Deborah Marshall
Affiliation:
The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Patterns of the diffusion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Canadian hospitals were determined by a telephone survey of 153 randomly selected hospitals over two years. Results were analyzed by region, hospital size, and type of hospital. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has diffused very quickly compared with other technologies, before any comprehensive evaluation to consider its potential impact could take place.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 287 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.Baker, S. R.The diffusion of high technology medical innovation: The computed tomography scanner example. Social Science and Medicine, 1979, 13, 155–62.Google Scholar
2.Banta, H. D.The diffusion of the computed tomography (CT) scanner in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 1980, 10, 251–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Banta, H. D., Behney, C. J., & Willems, J. S.Toward rational technology in medicine: Considerations for health policy. New York, NY: Springer, 1981.Google Scholar
4.Boutwell, R. C., & Mitchell, J. B.Diffusion of new technologies in the treatment of the Medicare population: Implications for patient access and program expenditures. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Canadian Hospital Association, Canadian Hospital Directory, 1990. Ottawa: Canadian Hospital Association, 1990.Google Scholar
6.Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H.Medical innovation. A diffusion study. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.Google Scholar
7.Feeny, D. The diffusion of new health care technologies. In Feeny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and public policy. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986, 25–40.Google Scholar
8.Greer, A. L.Adoption of medical technology. The hospital's three decision systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 669–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Hillman, B. J.Government health policy and the diffusion of new medical devices. Health Services Research, 1986, 21, 681–711.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Marshall, D., Clark, E., & Hailey, D. The impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Canada and Australia. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care, Sorrento, Italy, 1993.Google Scholar
12.Russell, L. B.The diffusion of new hospital technologies in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 1976, 6, 557–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Steinberg, E. P.The status of MRI in 1986: Rates of diffusion in the United States and worldwide. American Journal of Radiology, 1986, 147, 435–55.Google ScholarPubMed