Impact of Guidelines on the Diffusion of Medical Technology: A Case Study of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in the UK

Rucha Vadia () and Tom Stargardt
Additional contact information
Rucha Vadia: University of Hamburg
Tom Stargardt: University of Hamburg

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2021, vol. 19, issue 2, No 10, 243-252

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Research on clinical practice guidelines as a determinant of the diffusion of medical technology remains sparse. We aim to evaluate the impact of guidelines on the awareness of medical technology, as a proxy of its use, with the example of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods We measured clinician awareness based on Google searches performed for CRT that corresponded with actual CRT implant numbers provided by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). We identified the guideline recommendations published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) within the UK, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) at the European level, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association in the United States (US). We specified a dynamic moving average model, with Google searches as the dependent variable and guideline changes as the independent variables. Results One guideline change published by NICE in 2007 and two changes released by the US guidelines in 2005 and 2012 were significantly correlated with the Google searches (p = 0.08, p = 0.02, and p = 0.02, respectively). Guideline changes by the ESC had no significant impact. Changes recommending CRT in place of a conventional pacemaker, in patients with atrial fibrillation, and restricting CRT due to contraindication, remained universally uninfluential. Conclusion The factors associated with a lack of awareness (as a proxy for technology diffusion) in our case study were: a lack of strong clinical evidence that resulted in the moderate strength of a recommendation, a lack of recognition of any externally published recommendation by NICE, and the frequent release of guidelines with minor changes targeting small patient groups. At least in our case, in the absence of NICE guidelines, the US guidelines received more attention than their non-UK European counterparts, even if the former were released after the latter.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00610-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00610-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00610-8

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().