Literature DB >> 24214405

Defining reducible risk : Social dimensions of assessing birth technologies.

S B Ruzek1.   

Abstract

In maternity care, costly high-technology interventions that have never been shown to be clinically effective continue to be used in the United States, while inexpensive and effective low-technology interventions continue to be underused. Three high-technology approaches to risk reduction-electronic fetal monitoring, cesarean section, and home uterine activity monitoring are contrasted with three low-technology approaches-prenatal care, smoking cessation, and nutrition supplementation. These technologies are examined in terms of current controversies over their safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Examination of these controversies illustrates how the medical technology industry, the regulatory process, and systems of social stratification contribute to social and cultural constructions of what are regarded as reducible birth risks.

Year:  1993        PMID: 24214405     DOI: 10.1007/BF02692248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Nat        ISSN: 1045-6767


  41 in total

1.  Beta-adrenergic agonists for preterm labor.

Authors:  K J Leveno; F G Cunningham
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-07-30       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Toward rational technology in medicine: considerations for health policy.

Authors:  H D Banta; C J Behney; J S Willems
Journal:  Springer Ser Health Care Soc       Date:  1981

3.  Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise.

Authors:  S M Taffel; P J Placek; T Liss
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  The safety of diagnostic ultrasound.

Authors:  H B Meire
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1987-12

5.  Effects of electronic fetal-heart-rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants.

Authors:  K K Shy; D A Luthy; F C Bennett; M Whitfield; E B Larson; G van Belle; J P Hughes; J A Wilson; M A Stenchever
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1990-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Improving the use of medical technology.

Authors:  J S Willems; H D Banta
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Some comments on the Massachusetts WIC evaluation.

Authors:  D Rush
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  WIC prenatal participation and its relationship to newborn Medicaid costs in Missouri: a cost/benefit analysis.

Authors:  W F Schramm
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice.

Authors:  J Kosecoff; D E Kanouse; W H Rogers; L McCloskey; C M Winslow; R H Brook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1987-11-20       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  WIC participation and pregnancy outcomes: Massachusetts Statewide Evaluation Project.

Authors:  M Kotelchuck; J B Schwartz; M T Anderka; K S Finison
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.