From recommendation to action: psychosocial factors influencing physician intention to use Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating the impact of recommendations based upon health technology assessment (HTA) represents a challenge for both HTA agencies and healthcare policy-makers. Using a psychosocial theoretical framework, this study aimed at exploring the factors affecting physician intention to adopt HTA recommendations. The selected recommendations were prioritisation systems for patients on waiting lists for two surgical procedures: hip and knee replacement and cataract surgery. METHODS: Determinants of physician intention to use HTA recommendations for patient prioritisation were assessed by a questionnaire based upon the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour. A total of 96 physicians from two medical specialties (ophthalmology and orthopaedic surgery) responded to the questionnaire (response rate 44.2%). A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to assess differences between medical specialties on the set of theoretical variables. Given the main effect difference between specialties, two regression models were tested separately to assess the psychosocial determinants of physician intention to use HTA recommendations for the prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for surgical procedures. RESULTS: Factors influencing physician intention to use HTA recommendations differ between groups of specialists. Intention to use the prioritisation system for patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery among ophthalmologists was related to attitude towards the behaviour, social norms, as well as personal normative beliefs. Intention to use HTA recommendations for patient prioritisation for hip and knee replacement among orthopaedic surgeons was explained by: perception of conditions that facilitated the realisation of the behaviour, personal normative beliefs, and habit of using HTA recommendations in clinical work. CONCLUSION: This study offers a model to assess factors influencing the intention to adopt recommendations from health technology assessment into professional practice. Results identify determinant factors that should be considered in the elaboration of strategies to support the implementation of evidence-based practice, with respect to emerging health technologies and modalities of practice. However, it is important to emphasise that behavioural determinants of evidence-based practice vary according to the specific technology considered. Evidence-based implementation of HTA recommendations, as well as other evidence-based practices, should build on a theoretical understanding of the complex forces that shape the practice of healthcare professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".