TY - JOUR
T1 - Why technology matters as much as science in improving healthcare
AU - Szczerba, Robert J.
AU - Huesch, Marco D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr Szczerba is an employee of Lockheed Martin and was funded through a salary as part of his current job description. Dr Huesch is an employee of the University of Southern California and was funded through a salary and through an unrestricted research allowance. Dr Huesch also reports receiving salary and research support from Lockheed Martin through a grant to the University of Southern California. He also holds an adjunct appointment at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and reports receiving research support there for attending a private healthcare conference supported by Lockheed Martin. No other financial consideration or technical review of the manuscript was provided by Lockheed Martin. Dr Huesch reports receiving translational and applied science research support as well as salary support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality through a grant to the University of Southern California.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Background: More than half a million new items of biomedical research are generated every year and added to Medline. How successful are we at applying this steady accumulation of scientific knowledge and so improving the practice of medicine in the USA?. Discussion. The conventional wisdom is that the US healthcare system is plagued by serious cost, access, safety and quality weaknesses. A comprehensive solution must involve the better translation of an abundance of clinical research into improved clinical practice. Yet the application of knowledge (i.e. technology) remains far less well funded and less visible than the generation, synthesis and accumulation of knowledge (i.e. science), and the two are only weakly integrated. Worse, technology is often seen merely as an adjunct to practice, e.g. electronic health records. Several key changes are in order. A helpful first step lies in better understanding the distinction between science and technology, and their complementary strengths and limitations. The absolute level of funding for technology development must be increased as well as being more integrated with traditional science-based clinical research. In such a mission-oriented federal funding strategy, the ties between basic science research and applied research would be better emphasized and strengthened. Summary. It bears repeating that only by applying the wealth of existing and future scientific knowledge can healthcare delivery and patient care ever show significant improvement.
AB - Background: More than half a million new items of biomedical research are generated every year and added to Medline. How successful are we at applying this steady accumulation of scientific knowledge and so improving the practice of medicine in the USA?. Discussion. The conventional wisdom is that the US healthcare system is plagued by serious cost, access, safety and quality weaknesses. A comprehensive solution must involve the better translation of an abundance of clinical research into improved clinical practice. Yet the application of knowledge (i.e. technology) remains far less well funded and less visible than the generation, synthesis and accumulation of knowledge (i.e. science), and the two are only weakly integrated. Worse, technology is often seen merely as an adjunct to practice, e.g. electronic health records. Several key changes are in order. A helpful first step lies in better understanding the distinction between science and technology, and their complementary strengths and limitations. The absolute level of funding for technology development must be increased as well as being more integrated with traditional science-based clinical research. In such a mission-oriented federal funding strategy, the ties between basic science research and applied research would be better emphasized and strengthened. Summary. It bears repeating that only by applying the wealth of existing and future scientific knowledge can healthcare delivery and patient care ever show significant improvement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865857131&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865857131&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1472-6947-12-103
DO - 10.1186/1472-6947-12-103
M3 - Article
C2 - 22963227
AN - SCOPUS:84865857131
SN - 1472-6947
VL - 12
JO - BMC medical informatics and decision making
JF - BMC medical informatics and decision making
IS - 1
M1 - 103
ER -