Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39580425›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers.

Olivya Marben Sag, Xiang Li, Beatrice Åman, Andreas Thor, Anders Brantnell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Olivya Marben SagDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 751 85, Sweden.
Xiang LiDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Ångströmlaboratoriet, Lägerhyddsvägen 1, Uppsala, 752 37, Sweden.
Beatrice ÅmanDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Ångströmlaboratoriet, Lägerhyddsvägen 1, Uppsala, 752 37, Sweden.
Andreas ThorDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 751 85, Sweden.
Anders BrantnellDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Industrial Engineering and Management, Uppsala University, Ångströmlaboratoriet, Lägerhyddsvägen 1, Uppsala, 752 37, Sweden. anders.brantnell@angstrom.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing produces objects by adding layers of material rather than mechanically reducing material. This production technology has several advantages and has been used in various medical fields to, for instance, improve the planning of complicated operations, customize medical devices, and enhance medical education. However, few existing studies focus on the adoption and the aspects that could influence or hinder the adoption of 3D printing.

objectiveTo describe the state of 3D printing in Sweden, explore the perceived effects of using 3D printing, and identify barriers to its adoption.

methodsA qualitative study with respondents from seven life science regions (i.e., healthcare regions with university hospitals) in Sweden. Semi-structured interviews were employed, involving 19 interviews, including one group interview. The respondents were key informants in terms of 3D printing adoption. Data collection occurred between April and May 2022 and then between February and May 2023. Thematic analysis was applied to identify patterns and themes.

resultsAll seven regions in Sweden used 3D printing, but none had an official adoption strategy. The most common applications were surgical planning and guides in clinical areas such as dentistry, orthopedics, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Perceived effects of 3D printing included improved surgery, innovation, resource efficiency, and educational benefits. Barriers to adoption were categorized into organization, environment, and technology. Organizational barriers, such as high costs and lack of central decisions, were most prominent. Environmental barriers included a complex regulatory framework, uncertainty, and difficulty in interpreting regulations. Technological barriers were less frequent.

conclusionsThe study highlights the widespread use of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare, primarily in surgical planning. Perceived benefits included improved surgical precision, innovation, resource efficiency, and educational enhancements. Barriers, especially organizational and regulatory challenges, play a significant role in hindering widespread adoption. Policymakers need comprehensive guidance on 3D printing adoption, considering the expensive nature of technology investments. Future studies could explore adoption in specific clinical fields and investigate adoption in non-life science regions within and outside Sweden.

Indexed as

Printing, Three-DimensionalQualitative ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansInterviews as TopicSweden3D printingAdoptionBarriersEffectHealthcareQualitative

Identifiers

PMID39580425
PMCPMC11585134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.