Cited by 148Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare

Open access
May, Carl, Mort, Maggie, Williams, Tracy, Mair, Frances, Gask, Linda·2003·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) is one of the major research enterprises of late modernity, reaching into fields of previously autonomous professional practice, and critically interrogating the organisation and delivery of health care. The 'evaluation' of new health technologies within the field of HTA is increasingly a normative political expectation, as discourses of 'evidence-based' practice run through health policy in the UK and elsewhere. Despite its importance in governing the direction of innovation in health care delivery, there are hardly any empirical studies of HTA in practice. In this paper, we draw on two ethnographic studies of telehealthcare implementation and evaluation in the UK to explore the practical conduct of HTA, and we focus specifically on the social organisation and conduct of randomised controlled trials of these new technologies. The paper examines how evaluation forms a mediating set of practices that make the embedding or normalisation of a new technology possible; and present a simple model of the social and technical contingencies within the evaluation process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00419-7

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
May, C., Mort, M., Williams, T., Mair, F., & Gask, L.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
May, Carl
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-08
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
697-710
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064741069
Cited by
147
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
13.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
health technology assessment, telemedicine, randomized controlled trials, evidence-based practice, health policy, technology implementation, healthcare innovation
MeSH terms
Anthropology, Cultural, Decision Making, Organizational, Diffusion of Innovation, Evaluation Studies as Topic, United Kingdom, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Policy Making, State Medicine, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Telemedicine, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review