Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025
Combining Augmented Reality and 3D Printing to Display Patient Models on a Smartphone
Published on: January 2, 2020
Olivya Marben Sag1, Xiang Li2, Beatrice Åman2
1Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 751 85, Sweden.
Background:
Three-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.
Objective:
To describe the state of 3D printing in Sweden, explore the perceived effects of using 3D printing, and identify barriers to its adoption.
Methods:
A 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.
Results:
All 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.
Conclusions:
The 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.
