Physicians’ Views Of The Relative Importance Of Thirty Medical Innovations
Abstract
In response to a mail survey, 225 leading general internists provided their opinions of the relative importance to patients of thirty medical innovations. They also provided information about themselves and their practices. Their responses yielded a mean score and a variability score for each innovation. Mean scores were significantly higher for innovations in procedures than in medications and for innovations to treat cardiovascular disease than for those to treat other diseases. The rankings were similar across subgroups of respondents, but the evaluations of a few innovations were significantly related to physicians' age. The greatest variability in response was usually related to the physician's patient mix.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Asking participants to rank a list of items has been considered a reliable and valid research method for assessing perceived relative importance.
“Asking participants to rank a list of items has been considered a reliable and valid research method for assessing perceived relative importance (e.g.Alwin & Krosnick, 2004;Juniper et al., 1999;Fuchs & Sox Jr., 2001;Maio, Roese, Seligman & Katz, 1996).”
From Teachers’ perceptions of declining participation in school music (2011) · cites this paper as Fuchs & Sox Jr., 2001
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teachers’ perceptions of declining participation in school music
Ng, C.-H. C., & Hartwig, K. (2011) · Research Studies in Music Education · doi:10.1177/1321103x11423598 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fuchs, V. R., & Sox, H. C.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 30-42
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2100184470
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 15.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- healthcare innovation, physician attitudes, general internists, medical procedures, medication, cardiovascular disease treatment, physician age, patient mix, physician practice characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Humans, Internal Medicine, Physicians, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, United States, Biomedical Technology
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
