Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:17:24.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Contraceptive Technology: Case Studies of Incentives and Disincentives to Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Annetine C. Gelijns  and
C. Ok Pannenborg
Annetine C. Gelijns
Affiliation:
Institute of Medicine and Columbia University
C. Ok Pannenborg
Affiliation:
The World Bank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the characteristics of the process of innovation as applied to a range of contraceptive technologies. Whereas the understanding of how and why innovation works or does not work has grown in the past few decades in such professional fields as electronics, aviation, and optics, only the first attempts are currently under way in medicine. Borrowing from other fields, this paper proposes a theoretical underpinning to the process of innovation as it would apply to the development of medical technology. Subsequently, it documents this process with regard to contraceptive technology (oral contraceptives, injectables, intrauterine devices, implants, and surgical contraception), providing a framework of first-, second-, and third-generation definitions of development. A number of observations about the importance of certain supply- and demand-side determinants of the direction and rate of medical innovation conclude the essay.

Type
Special Section: Industry and the Generation of Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 210 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Anderson, E. T.Peritoneoscopy. American Journal of Surgery, 1937, 35, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bardin, C. W.Public sector contraceptive development: History, problems and prospects for the future. Technology in Society, 1987, 9, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Battelle Research Institute. The interactions of science and technology in the innovative process: Some case studies. NSF C667. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1973.Google Scholar
4.Berci, G., Adler, D., Brooks, P. G., Pasternak, A., & Hasler, G.The importance of instrumentation and documentation in gynecological laparoscopy. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 1973, 10, 276–84.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Berci, G., & Davids, J.Endoscopy and television. British Medical Journal, 1962, 1, 1610–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bishop, E., & Nelms, W. F.A simple method of tubal sterilization. New York State Journa of Medicine, 1930, 30, 214.Google Scholar
7.Brenner, W. E., & Edelman, D.A.Permanent sterilization through a posterior colpotomy. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1976, 14, 46–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cramer, D. W., Shiff, I., Schoenbaum, S. C., et al. Tubal infertility and the intrauterine device. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 941–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Croft, P., & Hannaford, P. C.Risk factors for acute myocardial infarction in women: Evidence from the RCGP's oral contraceptive study. British Medical Journal, 1989, 208, 165–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Daling, J. R., Weiss, N.S., Metch, B. J., et al. Primary tubal infertility in relation to the use of an intrauterine device. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 932–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Davis, H. J.Intrauterine devices for contraception. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1971.Google Scholar
12.Djerassi, C.The bitter pill. Science, 1989, 245, 356–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Djerassi, C.The politics of contraception: Birth control in the year 2001. The chemical history of the pill. San Francisco, CA: Freeman & Company, 1979, 227–56.Google Scholar
14.Fourestier, M., Gladu, A., & Vulmière, J.Perfectionnements à l'endoscopie médicale. Réalisation bronchoscopique. La Presse Medicale, 1952, 60, 1292–1294.Google Scholar
15.Grafenverg, E. Die intraterine methode der konzetions-verhutung. Proceedings of the Third Sex Reform Congress. London: Kegan Paul, 1929.Google Scholar
16.Haberlandt, L.Uber hormonale sterilisierung des Weiblichen Tierkorpers. Muenchener Medizinishce Wochenschrift, 1921, 68, 1577.Google Scholar
17.HulkaJ, F. J, F., Fishburne, J. I., Mercer, J. P., et al. Laparoscopic sterilization with a spring-loaded clip: A report on the first fifty cases. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1973, 116, 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G., & Jevons, F. R.Wealth from knowledge. New York: Halsted, John Wiley, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Liskin, C. S., & Quillin, W. F.Long-acting progestins: Promise and prospects. Population Reports, 1983, K, 17–55.Google Scholar
20.Liskin, L., & Blackman, R.Hormonal contraception: New long-acting methods. Population Reports, 1987, K, 57–87.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Liskin, L., Rinehart, W., Blackburn, R., & Rutledge, A. H.Minilaparotomy and laparoscopy: Safe, effective, and widely used. Population Reports, 1985, 9, 125–67.Google Scholar
22.Lungren, S. S.American Journal of Obstetrics and Disorders of Women and Children, 1881, 14, 78.Google Scholar
23.Madlener, M.Uber sterilisierende operationen an den tuben. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie, 1919, 13, 380.Google Scholar
24.Margulies, L. C. Permanent reversible contraception with an intrauterine plastic spiral. In Tietze, C. & Lewit, S. (eds.), Intrauterine contraceptive devices. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Excerpta Medica Foundation, 1962, 61–68.Google Scholar
25.Mastroianni, L., Donaldson, D. J & Kane, T. T (eds.). Developing new contraceptives. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
26.Mishell, D. R.Current status of intrauterine devices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 321, 984–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Mowery, D. C & Rosenberg, N. The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies. In Rosenberg, N. (ed.), Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 183–241.Google Scholar
28.Nelson, R. R., & Winger, S. G.In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 1977, 6, 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Newton, J., et al. Intrauterine conception using the copper-seven device. Lancet, 1972, ii, 951–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Nygren, K. G., Nielsen, N. C., Pyorala, T., & Allonen, H.Testing the clinical performance of Nova T versus copper T-200. Contraceptive Delivery Systems, 1980, 1, 179–80.Google Scholar
31.Ory, H., & Burkman, R. IUDs: An appropriate contraception for many women. Population Reports, 1982, 4, 124.Google Scholar
32.Palmer, M. R.Essais de sterilisation tuballe coelioscopique par electrocoagulation isth mique. Bulletin de la Federation des Societés de Gynecologie et d’Obstetrique de Langue Francaise, 1962, 14, 298–301.Google Scholar
33.Pannenborg, C. O. Contraceptive needs in the third world: The present paradox of a future family planning-technology nexus. In Keep, A. V., Davis, E., & Wied, D. De (eds.), Contraception in the year 2001. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Excerpta Medica Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987, 21–44.Google Scholar
34.Pincus, G.The control of fertility. New York: Academic Press, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Piotrow, P. TRinehart, W., & Schmidt, J. C.IUDs: Update on safety, effectiveness and research. Population Reports, 1979, B, 49–99.Google Scholar
36.Potts, M., & Diggory, P.Textbook of contraceptive practice, 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
37.Richard, B.W., & Lasagna, L.Drug regulation in the United States and the United Kingdom: The Depo-Provera story. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 106, 886–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Rinehart, W.Minipill: A limited alternative for certain women. Population Reports, 1975, A, 53–67.Google ScholarPubMed
39.Rioux, J. E. Female sterilization and its reversal. In Filshie, M. & Guilleband, J. (eds.), Contraception: Science and practice. London: Butterworths, 1989, 275–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Rioux, J. E., & Cloutier, D.A new bipolar instrument for laparoscopic tubal sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1974, 119, 737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Royal College of General Practitioners. Oral contraceptives and health: An interim report from the Oral Contraception Study of the RCGP. New York: Pitman, 1974.Google Scholar
42.Scommegna, A., Facog, T. A., Luna, M., Ramaa, R., & Dmowski, W. P.Fertility control by intrauterine release of progesterone. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1974, 43, 769.Google ScholarPubMed
43.Semm, K.Operative manual for endoscopic abdominal surgery. Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1987.Google Scholar
44.Slone, D., Shapiro, S., Kaufman, D. W., et al. Risk of myocardial infarction in relation to current and discontinued use of oral contraceptives. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 305, 420–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Steptoe, P. C.Laparoscopy in Gynecology. Edinburgh, Scotland: Livingstone, 1967.Google Scholar
46.Tatum, H. J.Milestones in intrauterine device development. Fertility and Sterility, 1983 39, 141–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Tatum, H. J., & Connell, E. B. Intrauterine contraceptive devices. In Filshie, M. & Band, J. Guille (eds.). Contraception: Science and practice. London: Butterworths, 1989, 144–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Tatum, H. J., Schmidt, F. H., Phillips, D., et al. The Dalkon shield controversy: Structural and bacteriological studies of IUD tails. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1975, 231, 711–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Tausk, M.Organon; Thestoryofan unusual pharmaceutical enterprise. Nijmegen: Thiem 1984.Google Scholar
50.Tietze, C., & Lewit, S.Evaluation of intrauterine devices: Ninth progress report of the Cooperative Statistical Program. Studies in Family Planning, 1970, 55, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Treiman, K., & Liskin, L. IUDs: A new look. Population Reports, 1988, B, 1–31.Google Scholar
52.Uchida, H.Uchida tubal sterilization. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1975, 121, 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Van Os, W. A. A. Experience with a combined multiload contraceptive device. In Zatuchni, G., Goldsmith, A., & Sciarra, J. J. (eds.), Intrauterine contraception: Advances and future prospects. Hagerstown, MD: Harper and Row, 1985, 60–66.Google Scholar
54.Vessey, M. P., & Doll, R.Investigation of relation between use of oral contraceptives and thromboembolic disease. British Medical Journal, 1968, 2, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Wagatsuma, T. IUDs in Japan. In Zatuchni, G., Goldsmith, A., & Sciarra, J. J. (eds.). Intra uterine contraception: Advances and future prospects. Hagerstown, MD: Harper and Row 1985, 243–50.Google Scholar
56.Wharton, C, & Blackburn, R.Lower-dose pills. Population Reports, 1988, A, 7.Google Scholar
57.Wheeless, C. R. Jr., Elimination of second incision in laparoscopic sterilization. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1972, 41, 669.Google Scholar
58.Wiedhaup, K.View of contraceptive development. Background paper prepared for the Comittee on Contraceptive Development of the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, 1988.Google Scholar
59.Wortman, J.Female sterilization using the culdoscope. Population Reports, 1975, 6, 61–71.Google Scholar
60.Wortman, J., & Piotrow, P. T.Colpotomy: The vaginal approach. Population Reports, 1973, 3, 29–44.Google Scholar
61.Yoon, J. B., & King, T. M.A preliminary and intermediate report on a new laparoscopic tubal ring procedure. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 1975, 15, 54–56.Google ScholarPubMed
62.Zipper, J., Tatum, H. J., Pastene, L., et al. Metallic copper as an intrauterine contraceptive adjunct to the T device. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1969, 105, 1274–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar