Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors.


The diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands was investigated. Questionnaires were sent to 138 laparoscopic surgeons. They were asked which of the following laparoscopic procedures they had adopted in their hospital: cholecystectomy, appendicectomy, Nissen fundoplication, inguinal hernia repair, large bowel resection and thoracoscopic procedures. Furthermore, they were asked to indicate the influence of 13 pre-defined factors: "budget', "competition', "conference', "extra benefit', "media', "nature of the technology', "patient demand', "planning/logistics', "reimbursement', "service industry', "support industry', "surgical technique' and "training/course' on the adoption of those procedures. The adoption rates for the procedures were: 100%, 69%, 19%, 43%, 19% and 52%, respectively. In general, factors were assessed more positively by adopters than by non-adopters. Significant differences were mainly found for "extra benefit', "nature of the technology', "surgical technique' and "conference'. The surgeon's perception of the additional benefits of an endoscopic technique and, to a lesser degree, of its technical aspects were the most important factors in deciding whether or not to adopt a procedure. In an ideal diffusion model, a description is given of when and how the 13 factors can influence the diffusion of an endoscopic procedure in the desired direction. In this model, the extra benefit of a new procedure must be proven before other factors are allowed to influence the diffusion.

Citations per Year

248 Citations

Semantic Scholar estimates that this publication has 248 citations based on the available data.

See our FAQ for additional information.

Cite this paper

@article{Dirksen1996DiffusionOS, title={Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors.}, author={Carmen D Dirksen and Andr{\'e} J. H. A. Ament and Peter M. N. Y. H. Go}, journal={Health policy}, year={1996}, volume={37 2}, pages={91-104} }