The PMA Scale: A Measure of Physicians' Motivation to Adopt Medical Devices.

BACKGROUND: Studies have often stated that individual-level determinants are important drivers for the adoption of medical devices. Empirical evidence supporting this claim is, however, scarce. At the individual level, physicians' adoption motivation was often considered important in the context of adoption decisions, but a clear notion of its dimensions and corresponding measurement scales is not available. OBJECTIVES: To develop and subsequently validate a scale to measure the motivation to adopt medical devices of hospital-based physicians. METHODS: The development and validation of the physician-motivation-adoption (PMA) scale were based on a literature search, internal expert meetings, a pilot study with physicians, and a three-stage online survey. The data collected in the online survey were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the PMA scale was revised according to the results. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the results from the EFA in the third stage. Reliability and validity tests and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 457 questionnaires were completed by medical personnel of the National Health Service England. The EFA favored a six-factor solution to appropriately describe physicians' motivation. The CFA confirmed the results from the EFA. Our tests indicated good reliability and validity of the PMA scale. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reliable and valid scale to measure physicians' adoption motivation. Future adoption studies assessing the individual level should include the PMA scale to obtain more information about the role of physicians' motivation in the broader adoption context.

Adoption Decisions for Medical Devices in the Field of Cardiology: Results from a European Survey.

Decisions to adopt medical devices at the hospital level have consequences for health technology assessment (HTA) on system level and are therefore important to decision makers. Our aim was to investigate the characteristics of organizations and individuals that are more inclined to adopt and utilize cardiovascular devices based on a comprehensive analysis of environmental, organizational, individual, and technological factors and to identify corresponding implications for HTA. Seven random intercept hurdle models were estimated using the data obtained from 1249 surveys completed by members of the European Society of Cardiology. The major findings were that better manufacturer support increased the adoption probability of 'new' devices (i.e. in terms of CE mark approval dates), and that budget pressure increased the adoption probability of 'old' devices. Based on our findings, we suggest investigating the role of manufacturer support in more detail to identify diffusion patterns relevant to HTA on system level, to verify whether it functions as a substitute for medical evidence of new devices, and to receive new insights about its relationship with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Individualized medicine (IM) is a rapidly evolving field that is associated with both visions of more effective care at lower costs and fears of highly priced, low-value interventions. It is unclear which view is supported by the current evidence. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the health economic evidence related to IM and to derive general statements on its cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of MEDLINE database for English- and German-language studies was conducted. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHOD: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies for technologies meeting the MEDLINE medical subject headings (MeSH) definition of IM (genetically targeted interventions) were reviewed. This was followed by a standardized extraction of general study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Most of the 84 studies included in the synthesis were from the USA (n = 43, 51 %), cost-utility studies (n = 66, 79 %), and published since 2005 (n = 60, 71 %). The results ranged from dominant to dominated. The median value (cost-utility studies) was calculated to be rounded $US22,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (adjusted to $US, year 2008 values), which is equal to the rounded median cost-effectiveness in the peer-reviewed English-language literature according to a recent review. Many studies reported more than one strategy of IM with highly varying cost-effectiveness ratios. Generally, results differed according to test type, and tests for disease prognosis or screening appeared to be more favorable than tests to stratify patients by response or by risk of adverse effects. However, these results were not significant. LIMITATIONS: Different definitions of IM could have been used. Quality assessment of the studies was restricted to analyzing transparency. CONCLUSIONS: IM neither seems to display superior cost-effectiveness than other types of medical interventions nor to be economically inferior. Instead, rather than 'whether' healthcare was individualized, the question of 'how' it was individualized was of economic relevance.

A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis inhibitors can be used to treat acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, there are various alternative treatment strategies, of which some have been compared using health economic decision models. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and to identify areas for quality improvement. DATA SOURCES: The literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A review of the quality of health economic decision models was conducted by two independent reviewers, using the Philips checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-one relevant studies were identified. Differences were apparent regarding the model type (six decision trees, four Markov models, eight combinations, three undefined models), the model structure (types of events, Markov states) and the incorporation of data (efficacy, cost and utility data). Critical issues were the absence of particular events (e.g. thrombocytopenia, stroke) and questionable usage of utility values within some studies. LIMITATIONS: As we restricted our search to health economic decision models comparing thrombosis inhibitors, interesting aspects related to the quality of studies of adjacent medical areas that compared stents or procedures could have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified areas where recommendations are indicated regarding the quality of future ACS decision models. For example, all critical events and relevant treatment options should be included. Models also need to allow for changing event probabilities to correctly reflect ACS and to incorporate appropriate, age-specific utility values and decrements when conducting cost-utility analyses.