Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T14:08:37.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Diffusion of Technology in an Ambulatory Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

James B. Bautz ,
Joel M. Schectman ,
Elaine G. Elinsky  and
L. Gregory Pawlson
James B. Bautz
Affiliation:
St. Luke's Hospital, University of Missouri
Joel M. Schectman
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Elaine G. Elinsky
Affiliation:
George Washington University
L. Gregory Pawlson
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To better understand technology diffusion in an ambulatory care setting, we analyzed adult outpatients’ use of magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) imaging in a group-model HMO between 1986 and 1989. The use of MR, but not CT, Increased at a rapid pace with only a small proportion of the scans being accounted for by primary care physicians.

Information

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1992 , pp. 301 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Battista, R.Innovation and diffusion of health related technologies: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Manzel, H.Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1966.Google Scholar
3.Cooper, L. S., Chalmers, T. C., McCally, M., & Berrier, M. A.The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3277–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Council on Scientific Affairs. Musculoskeletal applications of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 262, 2420–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Cowan, D. H. (ed.). Human organ transplantation. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1987.Google Scholar
6.Crues, J. V. III, Mink, J., Levy, T. L., et al. Memscal tears of the knee: Accuracy of MRI imaging. Radiology, 1987, 26, 573–88.Google Scholar
7.Dougherty, E., & Hagin, D.Hospitals cannot afford to be without access to MRI. Health Care Strategic Management, 1989, 7, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Edelman, R. R., Shoukimas, G. M., & Stark, D. D.High-resolution surface coil imaging of lumbar disc disease. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1985, 144, 1123–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Eisenberg, J. M., Schwartz, J. S., McCaslin, F. C., et al. Substituting diagnostic services: New tests only partly replace older ones. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 262, 1196–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Evens, R. G.The diffusion of MRI in the United States: What is fact and what is speculation? Radiology, 1988, 166, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Evens, R.Health care technology and the inevitability of resource allocation and rationing decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983, 249, 2047–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Evens, R. G.Economic and utilization analysis of MR imaging units in the United States in 1987. Radiology, 1988, 166, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Fineberg, H. V. Effects of clinical evaluation on diffusion of medical technology. In Institute of Medicine, Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
14.Freiman, M. P.The rate of adoption of new procedures among physicians: The impact of specialty and practice characteristics. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 939–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Haughton, V. M., Rimon, A. A., Sobocinski, K. A., et al. A blinded clinical comparison of MR imaging and CT in neuroradiology. Radiology, 1986, 160, 751–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988, 108, 474–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The diffusion of MRI: Patterns of siting and ownership in an era of changing incentives. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 146, 963–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Hillman, A. L., & Schwarts, J. S.The adoption and diffusion of CT and MRI in the United States: A comparative analysis. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 1283–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Huk, W. J., & Gademann, G.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Method and early clinical experiences in disease of the central nervous system. Neurosurgery Review, 1984, 4, 259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kent, L. K., & Larson, E. B.Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine: Is clinical efficacy established after the first decade? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988, 108, 402–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Knaus, W. A., Schroeder, S. A., & Davis, D. O.Impact of new technology: The CT scanner. Medical Care, 1977, 15, 533–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Larson, E. B., & Kent, D. L.The relevance of socioeconomic and health policy issues to clinical research: The case of MRI and neuroradiology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A.Models for innovation diffusion. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Miller, G. M., Forbes, G. S., & Onofrio, B. M.Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1989, 64, 986–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Modoc, M. T., Masavyk, T., Boumphrey, F., et al. Lumbar herniated disc disease and canal stenosis: Prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT and myelography. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 1986, 7, 709–17.Google Scholar
26.Peddecord, K. M., Janon, E. A., & Robins, J. M.Substitution of magnetic resonance imaging for computed tomography: An exploratory study. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 573–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Rettig, R. A.The politics of organ transplantation: A parable of our time. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 1989, 14, 191–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Steinberg, E. P.The status of MRI in 1986: Rates of adoption in the United States and worldwide. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 147, 453–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Steinberg, E. P., Sisk, J. E., & Locke, K. E.X-ray CT and magnetic resonance imagers: Diffusion patterns and policy issues. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 313, 859–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed