Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on September 2, 2006
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2006 18(5):377-382; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl034
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/5/377    most recent
mzl034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smart, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smart, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 18 no. 5 © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility

Andrew Smart

Bath Spa University, Sociology, Bath, UK

Clinical utility is an increasingly used concept in health care, but one that lacks an agreed formal definition or conceptualization. In this article, I show that the term is commonly used as a synonym for studies of clinical effectiveness and/or economic evaluations and argue that further factors relating to everyday working practice should be included under its auspices. I go on to develop a multi-dimensional model that outlines four factors in practitioners’ judgements about clinical utility: appropriateness, accessibility, practicability, and acceptability.

Keywords: clinical adoption, clinical utility, innovation, work practice

Address reprint requests to Andrew D. Smart. E-mail: a.smart{at}bathspa.ac.uk

Accepted for publication July 21, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
G. P. Browman, T. Berrang, and S. Smith
Prognostic Tools for Cancer Survival: A Secondary Role for Quality-of-Life Measurement
J. Clin. Oncol., June 20, 2009; 27(18): 2902 - 2904.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
T. Dalsgaard, H. Kallerup, and M. Rosendal
Outreach visits to improve dementia care in general practice: a qualitative study
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, October 1, 2007; 19(5): 267 - 273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.