Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their ...

mometers (65%); a fair segment of the doctors and hospitals had both devices in their
inventories (30%). Exclusive use of mercury-free thermometers was very limited (5%).
Health care professionals indicated mercury-free thermometers’ positive attributes.
Most doctors were quick to point out the positive qualities of mercury free thermometers,
consistently citing their resistance to breakage. Some doctors (25%) with
exposure to both alternatives preferred working with the mercury-free alternatives.
Variable impressions were given on the ability to read with some brands getting higher
marks while other electronic readouts were found to be more difficult to read than even
a glass thermometer’s linear scale.
Health care professionals also indicated mercury-free thermometer problems.
Regarding personal preference, three concerns were mentioned most often – accuracy,
reliability and to a lesser degree readability. The most frequent responses referenced
short-comings of mercury-free thermometers as a lack of accuracy and/or inconsistent
readings.
Costs for mercury-free thermometers were not considered a barrier. Doctors
stated that cost issues related to mercury-free products was less of a concern than the
accuracy and reliability issues. Responses indicated that prices ranged from 2.6 - 8.6
times greater for purchasing mercury-free thermometers, but were not felt to be a barrier.
Health professionals indicated hospitals required use of mercury thermometers.
Doctors indicated little choice in the equipment used when working outside of their own
private practice. When serving as an attending physician at a hospital or clinic they
were limited to the equipment on-hand and had little influence over purchasing decisions.
Health professionals understood the risk posed by mercury exposure. All doctors
(100%) understood the hazards of mercury and the majority expressed a desire to see
a shift to mercury-free devices.
34