Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:08:52.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editorial (Part II) Assessing the Technology of Developing Health Occupations: Obstacles, Risks, and Strategies for Future Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Nancy T. Watts
Nancy T. Watts
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health Professions
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Efforts to expand technology assessment in developing fields, such as physical therapy, face major obstacles. These impediments include scarcity of assessment tools, weak organizational structure for research, and clinicians' reluctance to assess economic factors. Risks that could accompany future work and strategies for reducing problems are discussed.

Type
Editorial
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 118 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

1.af Klinteberg, M. Editorial (part I): A summary of the history and present scope of physical therapy. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Anderson, J., Campbell, S. K., & Gardner, H. G.Correlates of physician utilization of physical therapy. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Conoley, J. C., & Kramer, J. J. (eds.). The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska, 1989.Google Scholar
4.Delitto, A.Subjective measures and clinical decision making. Physical Therapy, 1989, 69, 585–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Deusinger, S.Analyzing errors in practice: A vehicle for assessing and enhancing the quality of care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Feinstein, A. R.Clinical judgment. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1967.Google Scholar
7.Feinstein, A. R.Clinimetrics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Harrison, M. A., Atkinson, H., & De Weerdt, W.Benesh movement notation: A tool to record observational assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hoskins Michel, T.Outcome assessment in cardiac rehabilitation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Institute of Medicine Committee to Study the Role of Allied Health Personnel. Allied health services: Avoiding crises. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google Scholar
11.Jette, A. M.Measuring subjective outcomes. Physical Therapy, 1989, 69, 580–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Miles-Tapping, C., & Rennie, G. A.The Canadian Physiotherapy Quality of Care Project: Analysis of a derailed project. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Möller, G., Goldie, I., & Jonsson, E.Hospital care versus home care for rehabilitation after hip replacement. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Paatero, H., Holma, T., & Leisti, S.Crucial questions for physiotherapy in Finland. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Partridge, C.Describing patterns of recovery as a basis for evaluating progress. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Purtilo, R.Whom to treat first, and how much is enough? Ethical dilemmas that physical therapists confront as they compare individual patients’ needs for treatment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Rothstein, J. M. (ed.). Measurement in physical therapy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985.Google Scholar
18.Torrestad, A., Håkanson, M., & Axelli, T.The development of a program for the treatment of chronic pain and anxiety: A learning process leading from unsound to sound assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Ward, M. J., & Lindeman, C. A. (eds.). Instruments for measuring nursing practice and other health care variables, vols. 1 and 2. DHEW Publication no. HRA 78–53. Hyatsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978.Google Scholar
20.Watts, N. T., & af Klinteberg, M.Introduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Wolf, S. L.The relationship of technology assessment and utilization: Electromyographic feedback instrumentation as a model. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Zimny, N.J.Making information accessible and useful to practicing clinicians: Problem- knowledge coupling. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed