156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20859436)
1. 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.
Browman GP; Manns B; Hagen N; Chambers CR; Simon A; Sinclair S
J Oncol Pract; 2008 Jan; 4(1):2-7. PubMed ID: 20859436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.
Costa S; Bentley C; Regier DA; McTaggart-Cowan H; Mitton C; Burgess MM; Peacock SJ
BMC Public Health; 2019 Jul; 19(1):977. PubMed ID: 31331312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding.
Sinclair S; Hagen NA; Chambers C; Manns B; Simon A; Browman GP
Health Policy; 2008 May; 86(2-3):381-90. PubMed ID: 18243395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study.
Walton NA; Martin DK; Peter EH; Pringle DM; Singer PA
Health Policy; 2007 Mar; 80(3):444-58. PubMed ID: 16757057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Developing a framework to incorporate real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions: the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration.
Chan K; Nam S; Evans B; de Oliveira C; Chambers A; Gavura S; Hoch J; Mercer RE; Dai WF; Beca J; Tadrous M; Isaranuwatchai W
BMJ Open; 2020 Jan; 10(1):e032884. PubMed ID: 31915169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
[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. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?
Mitton CR; McMahon M; Morgan S; Gibson J
Soc Sci Med; 2006 Jul; 63(1):200-11. PubMed ID: 16427728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.
Feiring E; Wang H
BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):342. PubMed ID: 29743065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Priority setting for the implementation of artemisinin-based combination therapy policy in Tanzania: evaluation against the accountability for reasonableness framework.
Mori AT; Kaale EA
Implement Sci; 2012 Mar; 7():18. PubMed ID: 22423610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.
Bentley C; Costa S; Burgess MM; Regier D; McTaggart-Cowan H; Peacock SJ
BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):339. PubMed ID: 29739463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?
Reeleder D; Martin DK; Keresztes C; Singer PA
BMC Health Serv Res; 2005 Jan; 5(1):8. PubMed ID: 15663792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.
Keech J; Beca J; Eisen A; Kennedy E; Kim J; Kouroukis CT; Darling G; Ferguson SE; Finelli A; Petrella TM; Perry JR; Chan K; Gavura S
Curr Oncol; 2019 Apr; 26(2):e155-e161. PubMed ID: 31043821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.
Bentley C; Peacock S; Abelson J; Burgess MM; Demers-Payette O; Longstaff H; Tripp L; Lavis JN; Wilson MG
Health Res Policy Syst; 2019 Feb; 17(1):17. PubMed ID: 30732616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.
Berry SR; Hubay S; Soibelman H; Martin DK
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Nov; 7():193. PubMed ID: 18042302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience.
Howard S; Scott IA; Ju H; McQueen L; Scuffham PA
Aust Health Rev; 2019 Oct; 43(5):591-599. PubMed ID: 30205873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. P&T Committee Drug Prioritization Criteria: A Tool Developed by a Saudi Health Care System.
Esba LCA; Almodaimegh H; Alhammad A; Ferwana M; Yousef C; Ismail S
P T; 2018 May; 43(5):293-300. PubMed ID: 29719371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review on provincial concordance with respect to cancer drug funding decisions and time to funding.
Srikanthan A; Mai H; Penner N; Amir E; Laupacis A; Sabharwal M; Chan KKW
Curr Oncol; 2017 Oct; 24(5):295-301. PubMed ID: 29089796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Engaging the Canadian public on reimbursement decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: a national online survey.
Polisena J; Burgess M; Mitton C; Lynd LD
BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 May; 17(1):372. PubMed ID: 28549479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The public funding of expensive cancer therapies: synthesizing the "3Es"--evidence, economics, and ethics.
Kirby J; Somers E; Simpson C; McPhee J
Organ Ethic; 2008; 4(2):97-108. PubMed ID: 18839752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
