Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-09T06:46:25.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physicians' Opinions and Use of Controversial Technologies: The Case of Mammographic Screening in Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen ,
Nils Lauritz Natvig  and
Eli Marie Sager
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Affiliation:
University of Tromsø
Nils Lauritz Natvig
Affiliation:
Volda Hospital
Eli Marie Sager
Affiliation:
Ullevål Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

In a survey of 196 Norwegian radiologists and 37 breast imaging centers, physicians' preferences were found to be likely to influence the use of mammography. In their decision making, the radiologists appear to be influenced by income motives and by perceptions of the risk of misdiagnosing breast cancer. Despite opinions favorable to mammographic screening, most radiologists would prefer a CT scanner or a magnetic resonance imaging unit to a mammographic unit if the x-ray department were in a position to acquire capital equipment.

Information

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 316 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Adelson, P., Irwig, L., & Turnbull, D.Evaluating the impact of a promotional campaign for screening mammography: Who attends? Australian Journal of Public Health, 1992, 16, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Ashby, D., West, C. R., & Ames, D.The ordered logistic regression model in psychiatry: Rising prevalence of dementia in old people's homes. Statistics in Medicine, 1989, 8, 1317–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Backe, B.The Consensus Conference on Mammography Screening (in Norwegian: Konsensuskonferansen om mammografiscreening). Trondheim: The Norwegian Institute of Hospital Research, 1989.Google Scholar
4.Banta, H. D.Technology assessment and diagnostic imaging. European Journal of Radiology, 1992, 14, 141–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Baron, J.Thinking and deciding. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
6.Bassett, L. W., Bunnell, D. H., Cerny, J. A., & Gold, R. H.Screening mammography: Referral practices of Los Angeles physicians. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 147, 689–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Becker, M. H.Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. American Journal of Public Health, 1970, 60, 294–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H.Medical innovation: A diffusion study. New York: Bodds-Merrill, 1966.Google Scholar
9.Cooper, L. S., Chalmers, T. C., McCally, M., et al. The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3277–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Costanza, M. E., Stoddard, A. M., Zapka, J. G., et al. Physician compliance with mammography guidelines: Barriers and enhancers. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1992, 5, 143–52.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Council on Scientific Affairs. Mammographic screening in asymptomatic women aged 40 years and older. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 291, 2535–42.Google Scholar
12.Eisenberg, J. M.Doctors’ decisions and the cost of medical care. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press Perspectives, 1986.Google Scholar
13.Feeny, D., The diffusion of new health care technologies. In Feeny, D.Guyatt, G. & Tugwell, P. (eds.). Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency & public policy. Mon treal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Fox, S. A., Klos, D. S., Tsou, C. V., & Baum, J. K.Breast cancer screening recommenda tions: Current status of women's knowledge. Family and Community Health, 1987, 10, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Fox, S. A., Murata, P. J., & Stein, J. A.The impact of physician compliance on screening mammography for older women. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1991, 151, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Gerard, K., Turnbull, D., Lange, M., & Mooney, G.Economic evaluation of mammography screening: Information, reassurance and anxiety. Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 1992.Google Scholar
17.Gershon-Cohen, J., Ingolby, H., & Moore, L.Can mass X-ray surveys be used in the detection of early cancer of the breast? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1956, 161, 1069–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Grady, K. E., Lemkau, J. P., McVay, J. M., & Reisine, S. T.The importance of physician encouragement in breast cancer screening of older women. Preventive Medicine, 1992, 21, 766–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Hall, H., Gerard, K., Salkeld, G., & Richardson, J.A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 1992, 34, 993–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Holtgrave, D. R., Lawler, F., & Spann, S. J.Physicians’ risk attitudes, laboratory usage, and referral decisions: The case of an academic family practice center. Medical Decision Making, 1991, 11, 125–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Hurley, S. F., & Kaldor, J. M.The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Epidemiologic Reviews, 1992, 14, 101–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Kristiansen, I. S.What is in the doctor’s utility function?Paper presented to the Health Economists’ Study Group Meeting, Glasgow, 06 30–07 2, 1993.Google Scholar
23.Mammography screening in Norway. Norwegian Public Enquiries 1987:7 (in Norwegian Mammografiscreening i Norge, NOU1987: 7). Olso: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1987.Google Scholar
24.Mammography screening in Norway: An update (in Norwegian: Mammografiscreening i Norge: En oppdatering). Oslo: Directorate of Health, 1990.Google Scholar
25.McKinney, M. M., & Marconi, K. M.Legislative interventions to increase access to screening mammography. Journal of Community Health, 1992, 17, 333–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Nightingale, S. D.Risk preference and laboratory use. Medical Decision Making, 1987, 7, 168–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Nystrøm, L., Rutqvist, L. E., Wall, S., et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet, 1993, 341, 973–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Ogle, K., & Myrick, F.Screening mammography in a primary care setting. Family and Community Health, 1990, 13, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Olsson, S., Danneskiold-Samsøe, B., Georgsson, G., et al. Radiology in the Nordic countries (in Swedish: Radiologin i Norden). Stockholm: SPRI, 1990.Google Scholar
30.Ramsey, S. D., Hillman, A. L., Renshaw, L. R., et al. How important is the scientific literature in guiding clinical decisions? The case of magnetic resonance imaging. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 253–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Roberts, M. M.Breast screening: Time for a rethink? British Medical Journal, 1989, 299, 1153–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Roebuck, E. J.Mammography and screening for breast cancer. British Medical Journal, 1986, 292, 223–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.SAS technical report P-200. Release 6.04. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 1990.Google Scholar
34.SAS/STA T user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
35.Schmidt, J. G.The epidemiology of mass breast cancer screening—A plea for a valid measure of benefit. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, 43, 215–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Shapiro, S., Venet, W., Strax, P., et al. Ten-to fourteen-year effect of scanning on breast cancer mortality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1982, 69, 349–55.Google Scholar
37.Skrabanek, P.The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1991, 7, 633–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Tabar, L., Fagerberg, G., Duffy, S. W., & Day, N. E.The Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: Recent results and calculation of benefit. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1989, 43, 107–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Turner, B. J., Amsel, Z., Lustbader, E., et al. Breast cancer screening: Effect of physician specialty, practice setting, year of medical school graduation, and sex. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1992, 8, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Warner, K. E.A desperation-reaction model of medical diffusion. Health Services Research, 1975, 10, 369.Google ScholarPubMed
41.Zapka, J. G., Hosmer, D., Costanza, M. E., et al. Changes in mammography use: Economic, need, and service factors. American Journal of Public Health, 1992, 82, 1345–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed