A comparison of health technology adoption in four countries (Japan, Korea, the UK, and the US)

166 41 449 8 641 document 449 Kim08PhD.pdf application/pdf 21ac1009b59964a2f62f8ec2a99f3302 MD5 2397035 2011-07-19 16:13:41 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/1/Kim08PhD.pdf 166 1 1 application/pdf application/pdf en public

Kim08PhD.pdf

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23660 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23660 http://eprints.org/relation/hassmallThumbnailVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23660 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23661 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23661 http://eprints.org/relation/haspreviewThumbnailVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23661 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/25288 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/25288 http://eprints.org/relation/hasIndexCodesVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/25288 450 6 642 document 450 Decl_IS_Kim08PhD.jpg image/jpeg 923e2471044450de0f7af3d884684749 MD5 121716 2011-07-19 16:13:42 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/2/Decl_IS_Kim08PhD.jpg 166 2 2 image/jpeg image/jpeg en staffonly

Decl_IS_Kim08PhD.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23662 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23662 http://eprints.org/relation/hassmallThumbnailVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23662 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23663 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23663 http://eprints.org/relation/hasmediumThumbnailVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23663 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23664 http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23664 http://eprints.org/relation/haspreviewThumbnailVersion http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/23664 23661 2 49783 document 23661 preview.jpg image/jpeg 6806515197436df333a0cd7c7c9ad8a3 MD5 11213 2013-01-29 14:44:51 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/14/preview.jpg 166 14 14 image/jpeg image/jpeg Thumbnail Documents conversion from application/pdf to thumbnail_preview en public

preview.jpg

indexcodes.txt

preview.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/ispreviewThumbnailVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 23663 2 49786 document 23663 medium.jpg image/jpeg 4a04e4013abc58c3d6a556ce5fff2286 MD5 1858 2013-01-29 14:44:53 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/16/medium.jpg 166 16 16 image/jpeg image/jpg Image thumbnails conversion from image/jpeg to thumbnail_medium en staffonly

medium.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/ismediumThumbnailVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 23660 2 49782 document 23660 small.png image/png 08cc128d0b5843e4ac5e2afa51522fe8 MD5 3918 2013-01-29 14:44:51 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/13/small.png 166 13 13 image/png thumbnail_small Thumbnail Documents conversion from application/pdf to thumbnail_small en public

small.png

small.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 http://eprints.org/relation/issmallThumbnailVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/450 25288 2 52375 document 25288 indexcodes.txt text/plain 164ffdd1ad8d6334b2831f2e613f3347 MD5 61086 2013-01-29 19:32:50 http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/166/18/indexcodes.txt 166 18 18 text/plain indexcodes Generate index codes conversion from application/pdf to indexcodes en public

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/449 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/449 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/document/449 archive 4031 disk0/00/00/01/66 2008-10-01 11:23:58 2019-01-21 16:33:59 2011-07-19 16:13:41 thesis show 0 Kim Myung Hun mattkim@yuhs.ac Raftery James University of Birmingham A comparison of health technology adoption in four countries (Japan, Korea, the UK, and the US) unpub HV RA 30sch_ppol Health technology adoption This research empirically examines and compares the adoption of health technologies through case studies. The health technologies under review are assisted reproductive technologies, cochlear implants, haematopoietic stem cell transplantations, caesarean section deliveries, Gamma knife units and kidney transplants in four countries: Japan, Korea, the UK and the US. The interactions between the micro factors of health technologies and the macro environment in the adoption of health technologies are examined on the basis of a literature review and analysis of data. The micro factors were evaluated in terms of economic, clinical and technical aspects. In assessing the macro factors, payment systems and regulations related to the selected health technologies were taken into account. To examine the micro factors, the results of health technology assessments in earlier studies were reviewed. In order to explore the macro factors, historical changes in the payment systems affecting the selected health technologies and legal regulations, including legislation, directives, guidelines and court orders related to the technologies, were investigated. The adoption level of health technologies was evaluated in time-series and cross-sectional terms, measuring the trend of technology adoption and comparing the experience of the four countries under review. This research suggests clustering health technologies into “welfare oriented technology” and “private benefit oriented technology” by considering the economic incentives of adopters, individual desires of consumers and public concern over the technology. Private benefit oriented technologies are those which adopters expect to increase income from the providers or which meet the personal desires of the consumers. For welfare oriented technology, the decision is dominated by the aims of public welfare. As the model predicted, the adoption of welfare oriented technologies was higher in the health systems under national planning, while that of private benefit oriented technologies was higher in the systems whose health provisions accept market conditions. 2008-07 graduation 2726382 eng author unchecked This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. public 315 University of Birmingham School of Health and Population Sciences d_ph na 2008-07 graduation