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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18601801)

  • 1. Why did some Danish counties introduce breast cancer screening and others not? An exploratory study of four selected counties.
    Hjulmann K; Vondeling H; Bech M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008; 24(3):326-32. PubMed ID: 18601801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations.
    Dobrow MJ; Goel V; Lemieux-Charles L; Black NA
    Soc Sci Med; 2006 Oct; 63(7):1811-24. PubMed ID: 16764980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation.
    Eddama O; Coast J
    Health Policy; 2009 Mar; 89(3):261-70. PubMed ID: 18657336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of an organized, nationwide breast cancer screening programme on non-organized mammography activities.
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Pintér I; Battyány I; Ember I
    J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):14-7. PubMed ID: 18416949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The "Health Benefit Basket" in Denmark: a description of entitlements, actors, and decision-making processes in the curative health sector.
    Bilde L; Ankjaer-Jensen A; Danneskiold-Samsøe B
    Eur J Health Econ; 2005 Dec; Suppl(Suppl 1):11-7. PubMed ID: 16270211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Priority setting and the ethics of resource allocation within VA healthcare facilities: results of a survey.
    Foglia MB; Pearlman RA; Bottrell MM; Altemose JA; Fox E
    Organ Ethic; 2008; 4(2):83-96. PubMed ID: 18839751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?
    Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
    Soc Sci Med; 2009 Feb; 68(4):766-73. PubMed ID: 19070414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Attitudes towards priority-setting and rationing in healthcare -- an exploratory survey of Swedish medical students.
    Omar F; Tinghög G; Tinghög P; Carlsson P
    Scand J Public Health; 2009 Mar; 37(2):122-30. PubMed ID: 19141543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adherence to cervical and breast cancer programs is crucial to improving screening performance.
    Mauad EC; Nicolau SM; Moreira LF; Haikel RL; Longatto-Filho A; Baracat EC
    Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(3):1241. PubMed ID: 19778158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. What reasons do those with practical experience use in deciding on priorities for healthcare resources? A qualitative study.
    Hasman A; McIntosh E; Hope T
    J Med Ethics; 2008 Sep; 34(9):658-63. PubMed ID: 18757635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Screening tool development for health impact assessment of large administrative structural changes.
    Ravn AK; Nicolaisen H; Linnrose K; Folkersen MW; Kraemer SR; Gulis G
    Scand J Public Health; 2008 Nov; 36(8):789-94. PubMed ID: 18684781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Public health as a county government priority: problems and solutions for the political arena.
    Marando VL; Melchior AC
    Am J Prev Med; 1995; 11(6 Suppl):17-23. PubMed ID: 8776137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care.
    Nekhlyudov L; Braddock CH
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2009 Sep; 18(9):1403-12. PubMed ID: 19708801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview: methodological consequences.
    Holmberg L; Duffy SW; Yen AM; Tabár L; Vitak B; Nyström L; Frisell J
    J Med Screen; 2009; 16(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 19564519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Counties selecting public health priorities--a "bottom-up" approach (Croatian experience).
    Sogorić S; Rukavina TV; Brborović O; Vlahugić A; Zganec N; Oresković S
    Coll Antropol; 2005 Jun; 29(1):111-9. PubMed ID: 16117308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Priority-setting for healthcare: who, how, and is it fair?
    Menon D; Stafinski T; Martin D
    Health Policy; 2007 Dec; 84(2-3):220-33. PubMed ID: 17628202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screening mammography, public perceptions, and medical liability.
    Mavroforou A; Mavrophoros D; Michalodimitrakis E
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Mar; 57(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 16321491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Development and implementation of health technology assessment in Argentina: two steps forward and one step back.
    Rubinstein A; Pichon-Riviere A; Augustovski F
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl 1():260-9. PubMed ID: 19527545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study.
    Gallego G; Taylor SJ; Brien JA
    Health Policy; 2007 Nov; 84(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 17618009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Health technology assessment in Denmark: strategy, implementation, and developments.
    Sigmund H; Kristensen FB
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl 1():94-101. PubMed ID: 19505351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.