Decision-making process in radiology: the magnetic resonance example in the TA context
In order to understand the decision-making process in a Radiology Department, taking the Magnetic Resonance Equipment as an example, this paper reports a project to be followed. It is a guideline for future work development regarding Technology Assessment in Radiology. The Theoretical Framework is divided is three big issues. The first is “Technology Assessment”. Starting with the definition of some important concepts, the history and development of Technology Assessment will be addressed. The aim of this issue is to give a general main idea concerning TA contextualization. Doing a transposition of this subject to health area, it is also important to understand the particularities of Health Technology Assessment, second issue. Portugal framework on this subject will also be addressed. As so, the Portuguese National Health System is characterized and the decision-making stakeholders identified, has well as the competences for the decision-making process in general. The third issue is Decision-Making and its aim is to give a general elucidation on decision-making matters. To accomplish this, a research methodology was outlined, so that six research questions could be answered and five hypotheses could be accepted or refuted, in the future. With this research methodology, the Portuguese state of the art Magnetic Resonance equipment existence will be studied, using a survey as a resource. In the future, a mapping stakeholder technique will be used to identify the decision making key stakeholders and a survey will be applied to map theirs skills and competences in the process, where a pre-test was already applied. The results of this pre-test are presented.
Volume (Year): 7 (2011)
Issue (Month): 7 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 21 790 83 00 ext. 1218/1488|
Phone: 212948503 ext.10401
Web page: http://sites.fct.unl.pt/iet/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Perry, Seymour & Thamer, Mae, 1997. "Health technology assessment: Decentralized and fragmented in the US compared to other countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 177-198, June.
- Chrzanowski, Richard & Gutzwiller, Felix, 1986. "The assessment of medical technologies. Examples from Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 45-55.
- Oortwijn, Wija & Banta, David & Vondeling, Hindrik & Bouter, Lex, 1999. "Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: actors and activities," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 241-253, May.
- Stephan, Jean Claude, 1988. "Technology assessment at the French National Centre for hospital equipment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 341-347, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ieu:journl:v:7:y:2011:i:7:p:75-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (António Brandão Moniz)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.