Authors' objectives:

The aim of this overview was to find out how generalist physicians from different settings assessed the impact on patients' health of Health Technologies (HT) introduced in the last 25 years.

Authors' results and conclusions: Forty-nine (49) physicians (53% of the total) answered, 25 hospital internists and 24 GPs. Instrumental technologies, such as imaging diagnosis and coronary angioplasty, were the most highly-rated for their impact on patients health (average score >0.76 on a scale from 0 (lowest possible impact) to 1 (greatest possible impact). The lowest impact would be caused by the disappearance of different drugs (average score <0.43). Globally, ultrasound was the most highly-rated HT and oral hypoglycaemic agents the least positively rated, with an average impact score of 0.878 and 0.098, respectively. Differences were also observed in the impact assessment of some HT according to the participants practice setting (hospital/primary care), especially in diagnostic technologies (Spearman coefficient of correlation of r=0.64 between rankings of mean impact scores) as compared to treatment technologies (r=0.81). Cephalosporins, early fibrinolysis, gastrointestinal endoscopy and ultrasound were best rated for their positive impact on health by hospital internists as opposed to the GPs (p<0.005). The opposite occurred with the mammography, glycosylated haemoglobin, tamoxifen and bone-marrow transplant (p<0.05). Although impact assessments were similar when compared according to other professional and health-care characteristics of the interviewees, substantial variability was observed in the responses. This variability was greatest between physicians who graduated after 1981 compared to the more experienced ones.

Authors' recommendations: The rankings were very similar across subgroups of respondents, although HT impact assessments from hospital and PC physicians differed particularly for diagnostic technologies. This could be explained by differences in their accessibility or by the different needs of attended population. Variability in responses, however, was more related with some personal characteristics (maybe due to experience) than to professional/practice setting.

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/html/en/dir393/doc7921.ht ml

Year Published: 2006

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Spain

Organisation Name: Agencia de Qualitat i Avaluacio Sanitries de Catalunya

Contact Address: Antoni Parada, CAHTA, Roc Boronat, 81-95 (2nd floor), 08005 Barcelona, Spain, Tel. +34 935 513 928, Fax: +34 935 517 510

Contact Name: direccio@aatrm.catsalut.net / aparada@aatrm.catsalut.net

Contact Email: direccio@aatrm.catsalut.net / aparada@aatrm.catsalut.net

Copyright: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA)