The state of the art versus the state of the science

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1988, Pages 5-26

  Greer, Ann Lennarson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICINE; PHILOSOPHY; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CANADA; COMMUNICATION; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; ENGLAND; HOSPITALS, COMMUNITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEWS; PHILOSOPHY, MEDICAL; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; SPECIALTIES, MEDICAL; SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0023673965     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462300003202     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Allen, T. J. The role of person-to-person communications in the transfer of technological knowledge. In E. B. Roberts, R. I. Levy, S. N. Finkelstein, J. Moskowitz, & E. J. Sondik (eds.), Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, 34–49.
2. Banta, H. D. Major issues facing biomedical innovation. In E. B. Roberts, R. I. Levy, S. N. Finkelstein, J. Moskowitz, & E. J. Sondik (eds.), Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, 352–78.
3. Barnes, B. A. Discarded operations: surgical innovation by trial and error. In J. P. Bunker, B. A. Barnes, & F. Mosteller (eds.), Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 109–23.
4. Barsamian, E. M. The rise and fall of internal mammary artery litigation in the treatment of angina pectoris and the lessons learned. In J. P. Bunker, B. A. Barnes, & F. Mosteller (eds.), Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 212–20.
5. Becker, H. S., Geer, V., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. S. Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1977.
6. Becker, M. H. Sociometric location and innovativeness: reformulation and extension of the diffusion model. American Sociological Review, 1970, 35, 267–82.
7. Bingham, R. D. Innovation, bureaucracy and public policy: a study of innovation adoption by local government. Western Political Quarterly, 1978, 31, 178–205.
8. Bucher, R., & Strauss, A. Professions in process. American Journal of Sociology, 1961, 46, 325–34.
9. Bunker, J. P., Hinkley, D., & McDermott, W. V. Surgical innovation and its evaluation. Science, 1978.
10. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. D. Leadership and ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
11. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. Medical innovation: a diffusion study. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
12. Daft, R. L., & Becker, S. W. Innovation in organizations. New York: Elsevier, 1978.
13. Dimow, J. Primary physician referral patterns and access to treatment alternatives: the case of breast cancer. M. A. paper, Department of Urban Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Mil-waukee, 1985.
14. Doubilet, P., & Abrams, H. L. The cost of underutilization. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 95–101.
15. Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 700–14.
16. Feeny, D. Neglected issues in the diffusion of health care technologies: The role of skills and learning. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 681–92.
17. Fineberg, H. V. Gastric freezing: A study of diffusion of a medical innovation. In Institute of Medicine, Medical technology and the health care system: a study of the diffusion of equipment-embodied technology. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1979, 173–200.
18. Fineberg, H. V., & Hiatt H. Evaluation of medical practices: The case for technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 1086–91.
19. Finland, M. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. In F. J. Ingelfinger, R. V. Ebert, M. Finland, & A. S. Relman (eds.) Controversy in internal medicine II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974, 35–37.
20. Fletcher, S. W., Fletcher, R. H., & Greganti, A. Clinical research trends in general medical journals, 1946–1976. In E. B. Roberts, R. I. Levy, S. N. Finkelstein, J. Moskowitz, & E. J. Sondik (eds.). Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, 284–300.
21. Fox, R. C. Experiment perilous. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959.
22. Geertsma, R. H., Parker, R. C., & Whitbourne, S. K. How physicians view the process of change in their practice behavior. Journal of Medical Education, 1982, 57, 752–61.
23. Gilbert, J. P., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: Benefits and risks of innovative therapy. In J. P. Bunker, B. A. Barnes & F. Mosteller (eds.), Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 124–69.
24. Gittelsohn, A. M., & Wennberg, J. E. On the incidence of tonsillectomy and other common surgical procedures. In J. P. Bunker, B. A. Barnes, & F. Mosteller (eds.), Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
25. Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. M. Failure to recognize efficacious treatments. A history of salicylate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1981, 25, 78–92.
26. Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. M. The tomato effect: Rejection of highly efficacious therapies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 2380–90.
27. Greer, A. L. Adoption of medical technology: The hospital's three decision-systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 669–80.
28. Greer, A. L. Advances in the study of the diffusion of innovation in health care organizations. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1977, 55, 505–32.
29. Greer, A. L. Medical conservatism and technological acquisitiveness: The paradox of hospital technology adoptions. In J. Roth & S. Ruzak (eds.), Research in the sociology of health care IV: the adoption and social consequences of medical technology. Greenwich, CT.:JAI Press, 1986, 185–235.
30. Greer, A. L. Medical technology: Assessment, adoption, and utilization. A review of the literature. Journal of Medical Systems, 1981, 5, 129–45.
31. Greer, A. L. Medical technology and professional dominance theory. Social Science and Medicine, 1984, 18, 809–17.
32. Hiatt, H. H. Protecting the medical commons: Who is responsible? New England Journal of Medicine, 1975, 293, 235–41.
33. Ingelfinger, F. J., Ebert, R. V., Finland, M., & Relman A. S. (eds.). Controversy in internal medicine II. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974.
34. Jennett, B. High technology medicine: Benefits and burdens. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
35. Kaluzny, A. D., Gentry, J. T., & Veney, J. E. Innovation of health services: A comparative study of hospitals and health departments. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1974, 52, 51.
36. Kaluzny, A. D., & Hernandez, S. R. Organizational change and innovation. In S. M. Shortell & A. D. Kaluzny, Health care management: A text in organization theory and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1983.
37. Katz, J. Why doctors don't disclose uncertainty. Hastings Center Report, 1984, 1, 35–44.
38. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. The people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948.
39. Levy, R. I., & Sondik, E. J. Decision-making in planning large-scale comparative studies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1978, 304, 441–57.
40. McKinlay, J. B., McKinlay, S. M., Jennings, S., & Grant, K. Mortality, morbidity and the inverse care law. In A. L. Greer & S. Greer (eds.), Cities and sickness: Health care in urban America. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983, 99–138.
41. Mumford, E. Interns: From students to physicians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
42. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
43. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. The health technology case study series, vol. 1–37. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.
44. Potchen, E. J. The value of efficacy studies. In E. B. Roberts, R. I. Levy, S. N. Finkelstein, J. Moskowitz, & E. J. Sondik (eds.), Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, 275–83.
45. Reiser, S. J. Assessment and the technological present. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 7–12.
46. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press, 1971.
47. Stross, J. K., & Harlan, W. R. The dissemination of new medical information. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1979, 241, 2622–24.
48. Warner, K. E. The need for some innovative concepts of innovation: An examination of research on the diffusion of innovations. Policy Sciences, 1974, 5, 433–51.
49. Wennberg, J. E. Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Affairs, 1984, 3, 6–32.
50. Wennberg, J. E. Should the cost of insurance reflect the cost of use in local hospital markets? New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 307, 1374–81.
51. Wennberg, J. E., & Gittelsohn, A. Small area variations in health care delivery. Science, 1973, 182, 1102–8.
52. Wyngaarden, J. B. The Clinical Investigator as an Endangered Species. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 1254–59.
53. Young, D. A. Communications linking clinical research and clinical practice. In E. B. Roberts, R. I. Levy, J. Moskowitz, & E. J. Sondik (eds.), Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981, 177–99.