Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:29:36.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-Cost Diagnostic Technologies and Clinical Outcomes: The Impact of Inappropriate Utilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Steven Lewis  and
Jeanette Foreman
Steven Lewis
Affiliation:
Health Services Utilization and Research Commission
Jeanette Foreman
Affiliation:
Health Services Utilization and Research Commission
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commodification of low-cost diagnostic technologies (LCDTs) carries the risk of an unintended and potentially worrisome shift in how we conceive of health assessment. Optimizing practice requires a balanced understanding of both the beneficial and harmful impact of the use of LCDTs and the development of system incentives for appropriate use.

Type
Special Section: The Use And Abuse Of Low-Cost Technologies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , Fall 1997 , pp. 501 - 511
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.Anderson, G. H., Benedet, J. L., Le Riche, J. C., et al. Invasive cancer of the cervix in British Columbia: A review of the demography and screening histories of 437 cases seen from 1985–1988. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1992, 80, 1–4.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Archer, C., Levy, A. R., & McGregor, M.Value of routine preoperative chest x-rays: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 1993, 40, 1022–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Berwick, D. Improving the appropriateness of care. In Weber, V. (ed.), Quality connection, 3rd ed., vol. 1. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 1994, 1–6.Google Scholar
4.Blondel, B., Ringa, V., & Breart, G.The use of ultrasound examination, intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring and betamimetic drugs in France. British Journal of Obstetric and Gynaecology, 1989, 96, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Brunner, E. J., Marmot, M. G., White, I. R., et al. Gender and employment grade differences in blood cholesterol, apolipoproteins and haemostatic factors in the Whitehall II study. Atherosclerosis, 1993, 102, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Campbell, S., Warsof, S. L., Little, D., & Cooper, D. J.Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1985, 65, 613–20.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Cebul, R. D., & Beck, J. R. Other diagnostic applications: Biochemical profiles— Applications in ambulatory screening and preadmission testing of adults. In Sox, H. C. (ed.), Common diagnostic tests: Use and interpretation, 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Americ College of Physicians, 1990, 343–66.Google Scholar
8.Centor, R. M., Ruoff, G. E., & Seiner, J. C.Sore throat: Streptococcal or not? Patient Care, 1987, 21, 28–2.Google Scholar
9.Charpak, Y., Blery, C., Chastang, C., et al. Prospective assessment of a protocol for selective ordering of preoperative chest x-rays. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 1988, 35, 259–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Crane, J. P., LeFevre, M. L., Winborn, R. C., et al. For the RADIUS Study Group. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: Impact on detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1994, 171, 392–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Fleming, C., Wasson, J. H., Albertsen, P. C., et al. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 2650–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Galen, R. S., & Gambino, S. R. The electrocardiogram: Application of the model to a nonlaboratory test. In Beyond normality: The predictive value and efficiency of medical diagnoses. New York: Wiley, 1975, 100–06.Google Scholar
13.Garmel, S. H., & D'Alton, M. E.Fetal ultrasonography. Western Journal of Medicine, 1993, 159, 273–85.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Hammond, G. W., Cheuk, T., Horne, J., et al. Trends in costs and utilization of medical diagnostic services in Manitoba's private sector, 1982–191990; and the impact of a regulatory change to laboratory requisitions and profile ordering. Unpublished report, 1993.Google Scholar
15.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. Follow-up report: Thyroid testing guidelines. Saskatoon: HSURC, 1993.Google Scholar
16.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. Anatomy of a practice guideline: Tradition, science, and consensus on using electrocardiograms in Saskatchewan. Canadian Family Physician, 1995, 41, 37–49.Google Scholar
17.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. Cholesterol testing and treatment in adults: Final report. Saskatoon: HSURC, 1995.Google Scholar
18.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. Routine prenatal ultrasound guidelines. Saskatoon: HSURC, 1996.Google Scholar
19.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. Selective prenatal ultrasound guidelines. Saskatoon: HSURC, 1996.Google Scholar
21.Horan, L. F., Flowers, N. C, & Johnson, J. C.Significance of the diagnostic Q wave of myocardial infarction. Circulation, 1971, 43, 428–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. What women should know about prenatal ultrasound. Saskatoon: HSURC. 1996.Google Scholar
22.Kasper, J. F., Mulley, A. G., & Wennberg, J. E.Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. Quality Review Bulletin, 1992, 18, 183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Miller, A. B., Anderson, G., Brisson, J., et al. Report of a national workshop on screening for cancer of the cervix. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1991, 145, 1301–25.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Mintz, M. C., & Landon, M. B.Sonographic diagnosis of fetal growth disorders. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1988, 31, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Saari-Kemppainen, A., Karjalainen, O., Ylostalo, P., & Heinonen, O. P.Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: Controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. Lancet, 1990, 336, 387–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Royal College of Radiologists. Preoperative chest radiology. Lancet, 1979, 2, 83–88.Google Scholar
27.Sackett, D., & Snow, J. The magnitude of compliance and noncompliance. In Haynes, B., Taylor, D., & Sackett, D. (eds.), Compliance in health care. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1979, 11–22.Google Scholar
28.Saskatchewan Health. Unpublished data, 1993.Google Scholar
29.Scardino, P. T.Early detection of prostate cancer. Urologic Clinics of North America 1989, 16, 635–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Speechley, M., McNair, S., Leffley, A., & Bass, M.Identifying patients with hypercholes-terolemia. Canadian Family Physician, 1995, 41, 240–45.Google Scholar
31.Steill, I., Wells, G., Laupacis, A., et al. Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 594–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Tape, T. G., & Mushlin, A. I.How useful are routine chest X-rays of preoperative patients at risk for postoperative disease? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1988, 3, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Pain control after surgery: A patient's guide. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992.Google Scholar
34.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer. In Fisher, M. (ed.), Guide to clinical preventive services: An assessment of the effectiveness of 169 interventions. Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Baltimore: William & Wilkins, 1989.Google Scholar
35.Uusitupa, M., Pyorala, K., Raunio, H., et al. Sensitivity and specificity of Minnesota Code Q-QS abnormalities in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction verified at autopsy. American Heart Journal, 1983, 106, 753–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Van der Graaf, Y., Zielhuis, G. A., Peer, P. G. M., & Vooijs, P. G.The effectiveness of cervical screening: A population-based case-control study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1988, 41, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Vine, D. G., Cooperberg, P. L., & Dansereau, J.Ultrasonically measured biparietal diameter and abdominal circumference: Intra- and interobserver variation in the third trimester. American Journal of Perinatology, 1992, 9, 385–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed