Title |
How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?
|
---|---|
Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.stas1-1711 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Satish Nambisan, Priya Nambisan |
Abstract |
Technological innovations typically benefit those who have good access to and an understanding of the underlying technologies. As such, technology-centered health care innovations are likely to preferentially benefit users of privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Which policies and strategies should health care organizations adopt to promote equitable distribution of the benefits from technological innovations? In this essay, we draw on two important concepts-co-creation (the joint creation of value by multiple parties such as a company and its customers) and digitalization (the application of new digital technologies and the ensuing changes in sociotechnical structures and relationships)-and propose a set of policies and strategies that health care organizations could adopt to ensure that benefits from technological innovations are more equitably distributed among all target populations, including resource-poor communities and individuals. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 9 | 32% |
South Africa | 2 | 7% |
Costa Rica | 1 | 4% |
Kenya | 1 | 4% |
Canada | 1 | 4% |
Nigeria | 1 | 4% |
Japan | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 16 | 57% |
Scientists | 9 | 32% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
Professor | 4 | 7% |
Researcher | 4 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 13% |
Unknown | 27 | 44% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 9 | 15% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
Other | 7 | 11% |
Unknown | 26 | 43% |