These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11987437)

  • 1. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment.
    Ratcliffe J; Longworth L
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2002; 18(1):139-44. PubMed ID: 11987437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are women's expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer?
    Hundley V; Ryan M
    BJOG; 2004 Jun; 111(6):550-60. PubMed ID: 15198782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of parents and pediatric anesthesiologists' preferences for attributes of child daycase surgery: a discrete choice experiment.
    Gidman W; Elliott R; Payne K; Meakin GH; Moore J
    Paediatr Anaesth; 2007 Nov; 17(11):1043-52. PubMed ID: 17897269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reviewing emergency care systems 2: measuring patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment.
    Gerard K; Lattimer V; Turnbull J; Smith H; George S; Brailsford S; Maslin-Prothero S
    Emerg Med J; 2004 Nov; 21(6):692-7. PubMed ID: 15496695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Patient preferences and willingness to wait for a work-related orthopaedic rehabilitation: a discrete choice experiment].
    Bethge M
    Gesundheitswesen; 2009 Mar; 71(3):152-60. PubMed ID: 19288431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country.
    Mangham LJ; Hanson K; McPake B
    Health Policy Plan; 2009 Mar; 24(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 19112071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation.
    Ratcliffe J; Buxton M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1999; 15(2):340-51. PubMed ID: 10507193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meeting the needs of parents around the time of diagnosis of disability among their children: evaluation of a novel program for information, support, and liaison by key workers.
    Rahi JS; Manaras I; Tuomainen H; Hundt GL
    Pediatrics; 2004 Oct; 114(4):e477-82. PubMed ID: 15466074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Discrete-choice experiment to measure patient preferences for the surgical management of colorectal cancer.
    Salkeld G; Solomon M; Butow P; Short L
    Br J Surg; 2005 Jun; 92(6):742-7. PubMed ID: 15838911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Population preferences and choice of primary care models: a discrete choice experiment in Sweden.
    Hjelmgren J; Anell A
    Health Policy; 2007 Oct; 83(2-3):314-22. PubMed ID: 17376559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections.
    Ryan M; Gerard K
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2003; 2(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 14619274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using the discrete choice experimental design to investigate decision-making about pressure ulcer prevention by community nurses.
    Papanikolaou P; Lyne P; Ratcliffe J
    Health Soc Care Community; 2007 Nov; 15(6):588-98. PubMed ID: 17956411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of medical experience on the economic evaluation of health policies. A discrete choice experiment.
    Araña JE; León CJ; Quevedo JL
    Soc Sci Med; 2006 Jul; 63(2):512-24. PubMed ID: 16494981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment.
    Roux L; Ubach C; Donaldson C; Ryan M
    Obes Res; 2004 Aug; 12(8):1342-51. PubMed ID: 15340118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The choice of obstetric care by low-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands: implications for policy and management.
    Pavlova M; Hendrix M; Nouwens E; Nijhuis J; van Merode G
    Health Policy; 2009 Nov; 93(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 19540012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An evaluation of Midwifery Group Practice. Part II: women's satisfaction.
    Fereday J; Collins C; Turnbull D; Pincombe J; Oster C
    Women Birth; 2009 Mar; 22(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 18926788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Counseling pregnant women who may deliver extremely premature infants: medical care guidelines, family choices, and neonatal outcomes.
    Kaempf JW; Tomlinson MW; Campbell B; Ferguson L; Stewart VT
    Pediatrics; 2009 Jun; 123(6):1509-15. PubMed ID: 19482761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?
    Kjaer T; Bech M; Gyrd-Hansen D; Hart-Hansen K
    Health Econ; 2006 Nov; 15(11):1217-28. PubMed ID: 16786550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of information on preferences stated in a choice-based conjoint analysis.
    van Til JA; Stiggelbout AM; Ijzerman MJ
    Patient Educ Couns; 2009 Feb; 74(2):264-71. PubMed ID: 18954956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. South Australian rural women's views of their pregnancy, birthing and postnatal care.
    Guest ML; Stamp GE
    Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(3):1101. PubMed ID: 19621980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.