Purpose: Radio-frequency identification (RFID) systems are transforming hospital operations by improving care and reducing costs. However, hospital managers have some concerns about adopting RFID technologies. These are cost, return on investment, privacy and other technology issues. This study examines RFID adoption in health-care industry based on the Technology-Organization-Environment framework. This paper aims to demonstrate how US hospitals are adopting RFID technologies and make recommendations, using empirical data.Design/methodology/approach: An online survey was sent to Chief Information Officers and the top information technology (IT) executives of US acute care hospitals to determine the extent to which hospitals have implemented RFID technologies including the reasons, concerns and applications of RFID technologies, and the antecedents of RFID adoption in hospitals.Findings: The study found that a high percentage of respondents have adopted or are considering adopting RFID technology as a new management tool. Organizational and technological factors have strong positive influence on adoption, whereas environmental factors do not significantly affect the adoption decisions. The main reasons for implementing RFID technology are improved hospital operations, including inventory management, asset control, workflow and patient flow. Some of the concerns are cost of RFID tags and cost associated with implementation.Research limitations/implications: This study is limited to a small sample (n= 86) of US hospitals. This study should continue to be replicated in the future, as adoption of RFID technologies matures in the health-care sector.Originality/value: This study informs health-care managers on the challenges and opportunities of RFID by identifying motivations, barriers and issues related to RFID adoption. The findings of this study will expand the emerging literature and provide direction to academicians for further research in technology adoption.

Background: In this study, the utilization rates and survival outcomes of different radiotherapy techniques are compared in prostate cancer (PCa) patients stratified by risk group. Methods: We analyzed an extensive data set of N0, M0, non-surgical PCa patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were grouped into six categories based on RT modality: an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) group with brachytherapy (BT) boost, IMRT with/without IMRT boost, proton therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT LDR), and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT HDR). Patients were also stratified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines: low-risk (clinical stage T1–T2a, Gleason Score (GS) ≤ 6, and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) < 10), intermediate-risk (clinical stage T2b or T2c, GS of 7, or PSA of 10–20), and high-risk (clinical stage T3–T4, or GS of 8–10, or PSA > 20). Overall survival (OS) probability was determined using a Kaplan–Meier estimator. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by risk group for the six treatment modalities. Results: The most utilized treatment modality for all PCa patients was IMRT (53.1%). Over the years, a steady increase in SBRT utilization was observed, whereas BT HDR usage declined. IMRT-treated patient groups exhibited relatively lower survival probability in all risk categories. A slightly better survival probability was observed for the proton therapy group. Hormonal therapy was used for a large number of patients in all risk groups. Conclusion: This study revealed that IMRT was the most common treatment modality for PCa patients. Brachytherapy, SBRT, and IMRT+BT exhibited similar survival rates, whereas proton showed slightly better overall survival across the three risk groups. However, analysis of the demographics indicates that these differences are at least in part due to selection bias.