Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Risk-Benefit Perception and Trust on Medical Technology Acceptance in Relation to Drug and Device Lag: A Tripartite Cross-Sectional Survey

  • Regulatory Science: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

New drug and medical device introduction in Japan usually lags behind that in the West. Many reports indicate that in Japan, the associated risks are considered greater than the benefits recognized in other countries. This study aimed to compare the relationship between risk-benefit perception and acceptance of medical technologies in 3 leading markets.

Methods

A tripartite cross-sectional survey of the general public was used. In total, 3345 adults in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan participated, and sexes and age groups were equally represented. Questions about the perception of risk, benefit, and acceptance of medical and other scientific technologies, and trust of medical product providers or regulatory authorities were included.

Results

Five-step Likert coding for risk/benefit/acceptance of 4 medical items (x-rays, antibiotics, vaccines, and cardiac pacemakers) and 6 general items (such as automobiles and airplanes) were collected. Relationships between benefit perception and acceptance were linear for 4 medical technologies. The relationship had a similar slope but was shifted downward in Japan compared with the UK and US (P <.01), suggesting a lower acceptance in Japan for all benefit perceptions. The trend was the same between risk perception and acceptance, except for slopes that were negative. Correspondence analysis showed a strong correlation among acceptance of medical technologies, benefits of medical technologies, trust in doctors, and trust in the Department of Health. The UK and US attributes were clustered with positive responses such as “useful,” “acceptable,” and “trustworthy,” whereas Japan was clustered with intermediate to negative responses such as “neither” and “untrustworthy.”

Conclusions

Acceptance of medical technologies was low in Japan because of significant differences in trust for doctors and authorities compared with that in the UK and US. This is a possible basis for delays of 24 to 60 months for medical product approval in Japan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Danzon PM, Epstein AJ. Effects of regulation on drug launch and pricing in interdependent markets. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2012;23:35–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ueno T, Asahina Y, Tanaka A, Yamada H, Nakamura M, Uyama Y. Significant differences in drug lag in clinical development among various strategies used for regulatory submissions in Japan. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95:533–541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sato T. Current topics of pharmaceutical regulatory affairs in Japan Paper presented at: The 3rd China-Japan Symposium on Drug Development, Beijing, China. https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000157574.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  4. Tsuji K, Tsutani K. Approval of new biopharmaceuticals 1999-2006: comparison of the US, EU and Japan situations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;68:496–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yamada T, Kusama M, Hirai Y, Arnold F, Sugiyama Y, Ono S. Analysis of pharmaceutical safety-related regulatory actions in Japan: do tradeoffs exist between safer drugs and launch delay? Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:1976–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones RS. Healthcare Reform in Japan: Controlling costs, improving quality and ensuring equity. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp%282009%2980. OECD Economics Department working papers, No. 739. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing. Published 2009. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  7. Kaitin KI, Mattison N, Northington FK, Lasagna L. The drug lag: an update of new drug introductions in the United States and in the United Kingdom, 1977 through 1987. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;46:121–138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodall S, Tom J. Boston Consulting Group. Regulation and access to innovative medical technologies. http://www.medtecheurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_items/files/01062012_BCG_Regulation%20and%20Access%20to%20Innovative%20Medical%20Technologies_Backgrounder.pdf. Boston, MA: BCG. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  9. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Information materials regarding medical innovation [in Japanese]. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001f1rr-att/2r9852000001f288.pdf. Published May 19, 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  10. Nakano S, Kodama F, Kano S. Definition of the device lag and its measurement. Japan J Med Instrument. 2009;79:273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  11. AMDD. Issues regarding to medical device market and idea of solutions. http://www.amdd.jp/en/pdf/technology/Policy110627.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  12. Kawabata-Shoda E, Masuda S, Kimura H. Anticancer drug development from traditional cytotoxic to targeted therapies: evidence of shorter drug research and development time, and shorter drug lag in Japan. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:547–552.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yonemori K, Hirakawa A, Ando M, et al. The notorious “drug lag” for oncology drugs in Japan. Invest New Drugs. 2011;29:706–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science. 1969;165:1232–1238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Risks and benefits of medicines and medical devices—perceptions, communication and regulation. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/mhra-gp-qual.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  16. Slovic P, Peters E, Granac J, Berger S, Dieck GS. Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national survey. Drug Inform J. 2007;41:81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilmour S, Kanda M, Kusumi E, Tanimoto T, Kami M, Shibuya K. HPV vaccination programme in Japan. Lancet. 2013;382:768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Saitoh A, Okabe N. Current issues with the immunization program in Japan: can we fill the “vaccine gap”? Vaccine. 2012;30:4752–4756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gierlach EL, Belsher BE, Beutler LE. Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Anal. 2010;30:1539–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ethical guidelines for epidemiological research. http://www.lifescience.mext.go.jp/files/pdf/n796_01.pdf. Published 2002. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  22. Office for Human Research Protections. IRB guidebook. https://archive.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm. Published 1993. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  23. Department of Health. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees: a harmonised edition. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213753/dh_133993.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  24. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Guideline 2: ethical review committees. International Ethical Guidelines on Epidemiological Studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2009:7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Le Roux B, Rouanet H. Correspondence analysis In: Le Roux B, Rouanet H, eds. Geometric Data Analysis from Correspondence Analysis to Structured Data Analysis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004:23–65.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bates ME, Valverde LJ Jr., Vogel JT, Linkov I. Environmental radiation: risk benchmarks or benchmarking risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2011;7:400–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinhesselink R, Rosa EA. Cognitive representation of risk perceptions. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1991;22:11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohtsubo H, Yamada Y. Japanese public perceptions of food-related hazards. J Risk Res. 2007;10:805–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hinman GW, Rosa EA, Kleinhesselink RR, Lowinger TC. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Anal. 1993;13:449–455.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Takeda T, Yamaguchi T, Yaegashi N. Perceptions and attitudes of Japanese gynecologic cancer patients to Kampo (Japanese herbal) medicines. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Normile D.Infectious diseases. First U.S. case of mad cow sharpens debate over testing. Science. 2004;303:156–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Benefits type and amount of relief system for injury to health with vaccination. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw3/dl/2-086.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  33. Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/. Published 2016. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  34. Omer SB, Orenstein WA, Koplan JP. Go big and go fast—vaccine refusal and disease eradication. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1374–1376.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schneider S, Zimmermann S, Diehl K, Breitbart EW, Greinert R. Sunbed use in German adults: risk awareness does not correlate with behaviour. Acta Derm Venereol. 2009;89:470–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hoffmann TC, del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:274–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weber EU, Hsee C. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Manage Sci. 1998;44:1205–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20:195–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Anal. 2004;24:1575–1583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Muringai V, Goddard E, Aubeeluck A. Consumers’ understanding and concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): comparison among Canadian, American, and Japanese consumers. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74:1592–1608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Central Research Services Inc. Survey on “Feelings of Trust for Statesmen, Bureaucrats, Big Companies, Police, etc.” [Japanese]. http://www.crs.or.jp/data/pdf/trust12.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

  42. Uchida T, Nakajima Y, Teshima R. Should Japan’s regulatory reviewers have immunity from lawsuits? Regul Focus. 2010;Sept:47-48.

  43. Sipp D. “Fast-track” drug approvals hit speed bumps in Japan. Nat Med. 2004;10:883.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Tan SJ. Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping. J Consumer Marketing. 1999;16:163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Koji Todaka MD, PhD

  2. Department of Research and Development of Next Generation Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Junji Kishimoto MA

  3. Department of Medical Informatics, Kagawa University Hospital, Miki-cho, Kagawa, Japan

    Masayuki Ikeda MD, PhD

  4. Clinical Research, Innovation and Education Center, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan

    Koji Ikeda PhD

  5. Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Sciences, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan

    Haruko Yamamoto MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Koji Todaka MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junji Kishimoto MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masayuki Ikeda MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koji Ikeda PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Haruko Yamamoto MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Todaka MD, PhD.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Todaka, K., Kishimoto, J., Ikeda, M. et al. Impact of Risk-Benefit Perception and Trust on Medical Technology Acceptance in Relation to Drug and Device Lag: A Tripartite Cross-Sectional Survey. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 629–640 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017739267

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017739267

Keywords

Search

Navigation