Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:27:49.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Assessment of Technology and Quality: A Comparative Study of Certainties and Ambiguities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Avedis Donabedian
Avedis Donabedian
Affiliation:
University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Though technology assessment and quality assessment have much in common, they differ significantly in emphasis. Technology assessment judges technology itself; quality assessment examines the extent to which a technology is used well in its various settings. This article explores the nature of quality assessment–including the performance of individual practitioners as they care for individual patients and the care received by communities–and examines its interrelationship with technology assessment.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 487 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

1. Brand, D.An x-ray screening protocol for extremity injuries. Research Report Series, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 84–3347, Rockville, MD: National Center for Health Services Research, 1984.Google Scholar
2. Dalkey, N. C.The Delphi method:An experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corp., 1969.Google Scholar
3. Dalkey, N. C., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D.The quality of life: Delphi decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1972.Google Scholar
4. Delbecq, A., & van, de Ven A. H.A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7, 466–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Donabedian, A.Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Memorial Quarterly, 1966, 44, 166–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Donabedian, A.Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, vol. I, The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press,1980.Google Scholar
7. Donabedian, A.Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, vol. II, The criteria and standards of quality. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press,1982.Google Scholar
8. Donabedian, A.Quality, cost, and clinical decisions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1983, 468, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Donabedian, A., Wheeler, J. R. C., & Wyszenwianski, L.Quality, cost, and health: An integrative model. Medical Care, 1982, 20, 975–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Doubilet, P., & Abrams, H. L.The cost of underutilization: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for peripheral vascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. McNeil, B. J., Weichselbaum, R., & Pauker, S. G.Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 299, 1397–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. McNeil, B. J., Weichselbaum, R., & Pauker, S. G.Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quality of life in laryngeal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 305, 982–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Torrance, G. W. Measurement of health status utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 1986, 5 (03), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar