↓ Skip to main content

Debating the Desirability of New Biomedical Technologies: Lessons from the Introduction of Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Debating the Desirability of New Biomedical Technologies: Lessons from the Introduction of Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands
Published in
Health Care Analysis, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10728-011-0173-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Boenink

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to facilitate decision making on the desirability of new biomedical technologies. Since then, many of the standard tools and methods of HTA have been criticized for their implicit normativity. At the same time research into the character of technology in practice has motivated philosophers, sociologists and anthropologists to criticize the traditional view of technology as a neutral instrument designed to perform a specific function. Such research suggests that the tools and methods of more traditional forms of HTA are often inspired by an 'instrumentalist' conception of technology that does not fit the way technology actually works. This paper explores this hypothesis for a specific case: the assessments and deliberations leading to the introduction of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. After reconstructing this history of HTA 'in the making' the stepwise model of HTA that emerged during the process is discussed. This model was rooted indeed in an instrumentalist conception of technology. However, a more detailed reconstruction of several episodes from this history reveals how the actors already experienced the inadequacy of some of the instrumentalist presuppositions. The historical case thus shows how an instrumentalist conception of technology may result in implicit normative effects. The paper concludes that an instrumentalist view of technology is not a good starting point for HTA and briefly suggests how the fit between HTA methods and the actual character of technology in practice might be improved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Philosophy 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#255
of 296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,750
of 94,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.