Five biases of new technologies

Greenhalgh, Trisha

doi:10.3399/bjgp13x670741

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While novel technologies can be very appealing,27 their adoption into daily practice can be challenging 28. For example, the reception teams in our study found the requirements of the automated transfer associated with the kiosk to be beyond their typical responsibilities and, in some cases, expertise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of using a blood pressure (BP) self-measurement kiosk—a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer combined with technology to integrate the BP readings into patient electronic medical records— to improve hypertension detection.DesignA concurrent mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating observational and qualitative interview components.SettingTwo English general practitioner (GP) surgeries.ParticipantsAdult patients registered at participating surgeries. Staff working at these sites.InterventionsBP self-measurement kiosks were placed in the waiting rooms for a 12-month period between 2015 and 2016 and compared with a 12-month control period prior to installation.Outcome measures(1) The number of patients using the kiosk and agreeing to transfer of their data into their electronic medical records; (2) the cost of using a kiosk compared with GP/practice nurse BP screening; (3) qualitative themes regarding use of the equipment.ResultsOut of 15 624 eligible patients, only 186 (1.2%, 95% CI 1.0% to 1.4%) successfully used the kiosk to directly transfer a BP reading into their medical record. For a considerable portion of the intervention period, no readings were transferred, possibly indicating technical problems with the transfer link. A comparison of costs suggests that at least 52.6% of eligible patients would need to self-screen in order to bring costs below that of screening by GPs and practice nurses. Qualitative interviews confirmed that both patients and staff experienced technical difficulties, and used alternative methods to enter BP results into the medical record.ConclusionsWhile interviewees were generally positive about checking BP in the waiting room, the electronic transfer system as tested was neither robust, effective nor likely to be a cost-effective approach, thus may not be appropriate for a primary care environment. Since most of the cost of a kiosk system lies in the transfer mechanism, a solid-cuff sphygmomanometer and manual entry of results may be a suitable alternative.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[8,9,75,76]. Optimism and novelty biases are likely synergistic and new technologies are often associated with novelty, optimism and automation biases, so that benefits are exaggerated and adverse consequences minimized [55,57,77,78].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table incorporates a list of representative examples of ‘cognitive biases plus’ adapted from several references [8,9,17,22–25,46–59]. The list is not exhaustive and entities overlap or frequently co‐occur [22].…”

Section: Methods Definitions and Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence‐informed person‐centered healthcare part I: Do ‘cognitive biases plus’ at organizational levels influence quality of evidence?

Seshia

Makhinson

Phillips

et al. 2014

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'Cognitive biases plus' are hard wired, primarily at the unconscious level, and the resulting behaviours are not easily corrected. Social behavioural researchers advocate multi-pronged measures in similar situations: (i) abolish incentives that spawn self-serving bias; (ii) enforce severe deterrents for breaches of conduct; (iii) value integrity; (iv) strengthen self-awareness; and (v) design curricula especially at the trainee level to promote awareness of consequences to society. Virtuous professionals and organizations are essential to fulfil the vision for high-quality individualized health care globally.

show abstract

“…Professionals experience a continuous progress as new methods and technologies relentlessly enter the professional scene. This is partly because technology is associated with innovation, action, control, progress, and optimism (114)(115)(116)(117) and is related to the Technology Placebo Effect and Progress bias. Correspondingly, any efforts to hamper this forward-flow of advancement appear regressive and counterintuitive and an incorrect way to handle technology.…”

Section: Imperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biases and imperatives in handling medical technology

Hofmann

2019

Health Policy and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I am most grateful to Paul Slovic for directing my attention to the work of Michael Mazarr. Some elements of this paper have been presented and discussed with the participants of the Priorities 2018 conference in Linköping in Sweden. I am the sole author of this manuscript. The manuscript is sent exclusively to you, has not been previously published elsewhere, and is not currently under review elsewhere. I certify that there is no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript, and there are no financial arrangements or arrangements with respect to the content of this manuscript with any companies or organizations. Some of the examples given are experienced by the author himself as part of his previous job as a health technology manager at a hospital trust in Norway.

show abstract

Five biases of new technologies

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection

Mixed-methods feasibility study of blood pressure self-screening for hypertension detection

Evidence‐informed person‐centered healthcare part I: Do ‘cognitive biases plus’ at organizational levels influence quality of evidence?

Biases and imperatives in handling medical technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About