137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11230909)
1. Adoption of new health care services in Norway (1993-1997): specialists' self-assessment according to national criteria for priority setting.
Norheim OF; Ekeberg O; Evensen SA; Halvorsen M; Kvernebo K
Health Policy; 2001 Apr; 56(1):65-79. PubMed ID: 11230909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in Health Care: decisions and justifications.
Wester G; Bringedal B
Health Econ Policy Law; 2018 Apr; 13(2):118-136. PubMed ID: 28322184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Priority setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway.
Calltorp J
Health Policy; 1999 Dec; 50(1-2):1-22. PubMed ID: 10827297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.
Menon D; Stafinski T
Health Expect; 2008 Sep; 11(3):282-93. PubMed ID: 18816324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level -- the Israeli experience.
Shani S; Siebzehner MI; Luxenburg O; Shemer J
Health Policy; 2000 Dec; 54(3):169-85. PubMed ID: 11154787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Setting national priorities for quality assessment of health care services in Korea.
Cho W; Lee S; Kang HY; Kang M
Int J Qual Health Care; 2005 Apr; 17(2):157-65. PubMed ID: 15723820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Differences in older adults' use of primary and specialist care services in two Nordic countries.
Suominen-Taipale AL; Koskinen S; Martelin T; Holmen J; Johnsen R
Eur J Public Health; 2004 Dec; 14(4):375-80. PubMed ID: 15542872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda.
Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
Health Policy; 2007 Jun; 82(1):78-94. PubMed ID: 17034898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Implementation of the 2013 amended Patients' Rights Act in Norway: Clinical priority guidelines and access to specialised health care.
Johansson KA; Nygaard E; Herlofsen B; Lindemark F;
Health Policy; 2017 Apr; 121(4):346-353. PubMed ID: 28222905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems.
Noseworthy TW; McGurran JJ; Hadorn DC;
J Eval Clin Pract; 2003 Feb; 9(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 12558699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair.
Ottersen T; Førde R; Kakad M; Kjellevold A; Melberg HO; Moen A; Ringard Å; Norheim OF
Health Policy; 2016 Mar; 120(3):246-51. PubMed ID: 26851991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Monitoring prioritisation in the public health-care sector by use of medical guidelines. The case of Norway.
Askildsen JE; Holmås TH; Kaarboe O
Health Econ; 2011 Aug; 20(8):958-70. PubMed ID: 20853521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: views of health care stakeholders and health economists.
Douw K; Vondeling H; Oortwijn W
Health Policy; 2006 May; 76(3):334-45. PubMed ID: 16081185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Priority setting in healthcare. What can Germany learn from other countries?].
Busse R; Hoffmann C
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2010 Sep; 53(9):882-9. PubMed ID: 20853084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care.
Olsen JA
J Health Econ; 1997 Dec; 16(6):625-39. PubMed ID: 10176776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures.
Mariotti G; Meggio A; de Pretis G; Gentilini M
J Health Serv Res Policy; 2008 Jul; 13(3):146-51. PubMed ID: 18573763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers.
Martin DK; Giacomini M; Singer PA
Health Policy; 2002 Sep; 61(3):279-90. PubMed ID: 12098521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the relevance of personal responsibility in priority setting: a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian medical doctors.
Bringedal B; Feiring E
J Med Ethics; 2011 Jun; 37(6):357-61. PubMed ID: 21335575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Norwegian priority guidelines: estimating the distributional implications across age, gender and SES.
Carlsen F; Kaarboe OM
Health Policy; 2010 May; 95(2-3):264-70. PubMed ID: 20060613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Initial experiences and future challenges.
Oortwijn WJ; Vondeling H; Bouter L
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1998; 14(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 9611899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
