Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:44:32.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Effectiveness of Perinatal Care Technologies by Expert Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ronney B. Panerai ,
Rosimary T. Almeida ,
Margareth C. Portela ,
Manoel De Carvalho ,
Osvaldo Coura-silho  and
Tomas P. Da Costa
Ronney B. Panerai
Affiliation:
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Rosimary T. Almeida
Affiliation:
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Margareth C. Portela
Affiliation:
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Manoel De Carvalho
Affiliation:
Fernandes Figueira Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation
Osvaldo Coura-silho
Affiliation:
Maternity School
Tomas P. Da Costa
Affiliation:
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The majority of technologies in use in perinatal care were organized into 45 technological functions. Forty-six experts from 19 different regions of Brazil and other Latin American countries then selected a “basic package” (BP) of 15 technological functions. Considering the 12 main causes of perinatal mortality in Brazil, the experts estimated the number of preventable deaths, assuming universal coverage by the BP and the additional reductions that could be obtained by gradually adding other technological functions to the BP. A simulation was performed for the 26 states of Brazil to identify regional priorities for the diffusion of technological functions. For most regions, the BP appears to be the most effective intervention, with the potential of reducing perinatal mortality by 33%, followed by “coordination of services and referral of pregnant women” (14%), and “treatment of respiratory conditions” (11.8%).

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Summer 1991 , pp. 367 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

1.Attinger, E. O., & Panerai, R. B.Transferability of technology assessment with special emphasis on the Third World. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 545–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.BIREME. Index medicus latino americano. São Paulo: Centra Latino Americano e do Caribe de Informaç˜es em Ciência da SaÚde, OPS, 1979–1988.Google Scholar
3.Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Donabedian, A.The assessment of technology and quality. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 487–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Horn, J. J.Brazil: The health care model of the military modernizer and technocrats. International Journal of Health Services, 1985, 15, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
7.Joyce, T., Corman, H., & Grossman, M. A.A cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies to reduce infant mortality. Medical Care, 1988, 26, 348–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M.The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications. London: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
9.Mullan, F., & Jacoby, I.The town meeting for technology–The maturation of consensus conferences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 253, 1068–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. A classified bibliography of controlled trials in perinatal medicine 1940–1984. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Panerai, R. B., & Attinger, E. O.A quantitative tool for health technology decision-making. Proceedings of the Invitational Conference on Knowing, Learning and Sharing Management Tools in Health Care. Orlando, FL: Hospital Management Systems Society, 1985.Google Scholar
12.Panerai, R. B., & Attinger, E. O.Information systems for appropriate allocation of health care technologies. Proceedings of the MEDINFO 86 Conference. Washington, DC, 1986.Google Scholar
13.Peña-Mohr, J.Distributing and transferring medical technology – A view from Latin America and the Caribbean. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987 3, 281–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Portela, M. C., & Panerai, R. B.Decision support system for resource allocation in perinatal care. Proceedings of the MEDINFO 89 Conference. Singapore, 1989, 317–21.Google Scholar
15.Puffer, R. R., & Serrano, C. V.Patterns of mortality in childhood. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 1973.Google Scholar
16.Reisman, A., & Duran, L.Designing primary health care teams for developing countries. Public Health Reports, 1983, 98, 184–89.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Schoeman, M. E. F., & Mahajan, V.Using the Delphi Method to assess community health care needs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1977, 10, 203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Wilkinson, L.Systat: The system for statistics. Evanston, IL: Systat, Inc., 1987.Google Scholar