Abstract
The introduction of a new medical technology can have indirect, unintended, or unanticipated effects on individuals or on social systems. Although these impacts result from the widespread use of the technology, many of them can be predicted while the technology is being developed. A method for systematically identifying and evaluating these impacts is technology assessment. Such an assessment, made while a technology is being developed, could provide useful information for decision making about research and development and in planning for the technology's eventual introduction. Because only a few medical technologies have been formally assessed and because the process of medical technology development is poorly understood, one must be cautious in recommending widespread use of technology assessment. Nevertheless, enough is now known to permit the formulation of approaches that could be used in preliminary attempts at medical technology assessment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Office of Technology Assessment:Development of Medical Technology: Opportunities for Assessment. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1976.
American Biology Council: Contributions of the biological sciences to human welfare.Fed Proc 31: 1972, TF1–TF144.
White KL: International comparisons of health services systems.Milbank Mem Fund Q 46 117–120, 1968.
Hiatt, HH: Protecting the medical commons: Who is responsible.N Engl J Med 293 235–241, 1975.
Kass LR: The new biology: What price relieving man's estate?Science 174 779–788, 1971.
Cromwell J, Ginsburg P, Hamilton D, et al:Incentives and Decisions Underlying Hospitals' Adoption and Utilization of Major Capital Equipment. Boston, Abt Associated, 1975. (Report of Contract No HSM 110-73-513 from the National Center for Health Services Research, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.)
Wennberg JE:National Health Planning Goals. Report of a Seminar Sponsored by the Health Resources Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976.
Fox RC, Swazey JP:The Courage to Fail: A Social View of Organ Transplants and Dialysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Griner PF: Treatment of acute pulmonary edema: Conventional or intensive care?Ann Intern Med 77 501–506, 1972.
Office of Technology Assessment: Health Policy and the Computed Tomography (CT) Scanner. Draft report circulated in September 1976. (Final report scheduled for publication, summer 1977.)
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce:Cost and Quality of Health Care: Unnecessary Surgery. Report by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, DC, 1976.
Gaus CR:Biomedical Research and Health Care Costs. Testimony of the Social Security Administration Before the President's Biomedical Research Panel, September 29, 1975.
Worthington NL: Expenditures for hospital care and physicians' services: Factors affecting annual changes.Soc Sec Bull 38 3–10, 1975.
Brownfield RL, Ives ER: Creating a data base for the laboratory universe.Lab Management 14 22–26, 1976.
Mueller MS, Gibson RM: National health expenditures, fiscal year 1975.Soc Sec Bull 39 3–20, 1976.
Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Radiological Health:Environment Assessment Report (Performance Standards for Diagnostic X-ray Systems and Their Major Components, and Related Interpretive Policy Concerning the Assembly and Reassembly of Diagnostic X-ray Components). Washington, DC, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974.
Information obtained from the Office of the Actuary, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland.
National Heart and Lung Institute:The Totally Implantable Artificial Heart. Report of the Artificial Heart Assessment Panel, Washington, DC, National Institutes of Health, 1973.
Office of Technology Assessment:Technology Assessment Activities of the National Science Foundation, Hearings Before the Technology Assessment Board, June 12, 13, 1974. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1974. P. 3.
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics:Inquiries, Legislation, Policy Studies Re: Science and Technology: Review and Forecast. Second Progress Report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development to the 89th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, DC, 1966. P. 28.
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics:Technology Assessment. Statement of Emilio Q. Daddario, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development to the 90th Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC, 1967. Pp 142–146.
Arnstein SR: Technology assessment: Opportunities and obstacles. Presented to a staff seminar of the National Center for Health Services Research, May 12, 1976. Also published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and CyberneticsSMC 7 571–582, 1977.
Klarman HE, Francis JO, Rosenthal GD: Cost effectiveness analysis applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease.Med Care 6 48–54, 1968.
McNeil BJ, Varady PD, Burrows PA, et al: Measures of clinical efficacy: Cost effectiveness calculations in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive renovascular disease.N Engl J Med 293 216–221, 1975.
Swazey JP, Fox RC: The clinical moratorium: A case study of mitral valve surgery. In PJ Freund (ed):Experimentation with Human Subjects. New York, George Braziller, 1969. Pp 315–357.
Carroll JD: Participatory technology.Science 171 647–653, 1971.
Kennard B: Some models and criteria for public participation in technology assessment.J Int Soc Tech Assess 1 43–46, 1975.
Arnstein SR, Christakis AN:Perspectives on Technology Assessment. Jerusalem, Science and Technology Publishers, 1975. Pp 13–14.
National Academy of Sciences:Assessing Biomedical Technologies, An Inquiry into the Nature of the Process. Washington, DC, 1975.
Coates JF: The Identification and Selection of Candidates and Priorities for Technology Assessment.Tech Assess 2 77–104, 1974.
Hetman F:Society and the Assessment of Technology. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973.
Coates VT:Technology and Public Policy. Summary Report. Washington, DC, George Washington University, 1972. (Prepared for the National Science Foundation.)
Additional information
Dr. Banta is with the National Center for Health Services Research, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Hyattsville, Md. 20782 and Dr. Sanes is with the Department of Physiology, University of California at San Francisco 94117. This paper is based on a report,Development of Medical Terminology: Opportunities for Assessment, prepared for the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by the Office of Technology Assessment; it was developed by the authors with the assistance of an expert advisory panel chaired by Eugene A. Stead, Jr., M.D. The Office of Technology Assessment was established by statute in 1972 to provide objective policy analysis to committees of Congress on issues concerning science and technology. A health program was developed beginning in 1975. The report cited above is the first product of that program and is available from the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Banta, H.D., Sanes, J.R. Assessing the social impacts of medical technologies. J Community Health 3, 245–258 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01349387
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01349387