Beyond cost and outcomes: how clinicians understand the value of medical technologies
Christian Gadolin et al.
What the paper says
Purpose To explore clinicians' conceptualization of the value of medical technology, clinicians play an important role in the adoption of medical innovations. Therefore, understanding their perceptions will make it possible to obtain key insights into the conditions that are required for technology to be successfully integrated in the healthcare field. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative study based on 32 semi-structured interviews at a major Swedish university hospital. Participants included clinicians and key stakeholders involved in thrombectomy and osseointegrated prostheses. Thematic analysis of the data was used to identify the ways in which clinicians conceptualize value across multiple stakeholder perspectives and benefits. Findings The clinicians expressed a varied understanding of value from various perspectives, including societal, organizational, professional and patient. The overarching perspectives were consistent across settings; however, depending on the clinical context, the benefits associated with each perspective revealed both shared conceptualizations and context-specific variations. In the case of osseointegrated prostheses, professional value also showed temporal variation, shifting from early emphasis on research and networking to a later focus on collaboration and patient-centered contributions. Originality/value This study makes an original empirical contribution by demonstrating the complexity and temporal nuance in clinicians' value conceptualizations. The study shows that clinicians engage holistically with multiple value dimensions, albeit differently and with an implicit hierarchy, and that perceptions may evolve with technological maturity.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.