156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20859436)
41. A deliberative framework to identify the need for real-life evidence building of new cancer drugs after interim funding decision.
Leung L; de Lemos ML; Kovacic L
J Oncol Pharm Pract; 2018 Dec; 24(8):584-598. PubMed ID: 28747103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers.
Parker L
Health Policy; 2017 Jul; 121(7):793-799. PubMed ID: 28571666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.
Maluka S; Kamuzora P; Sansebastián M; Byskov J; Ndawi B; Olsen ØE; Hurtig AK
Implement Sci; 2011 Feb; 6():11. PubMed ID: 21310021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Use of real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives.
Clausen M; Mighton C; Kiflen R; Sebastian A; Dai WF; Mercer RE; Beca JM; Isaranuwatchai W; Chan KKW; Bombard Y
CMAJ Open; 2020; 8(4):E772-E778. PubMed ID: 33234584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.
Parmar A; Dai WF; Dionne F; Geirnaert M; Denburg A; Ahuja T; Beca J; Bouchard S; Chambers C; Hunt MJ; Husereau D; Lungu E; McDonald V; Mercer RE; Mitera G; Muñoz C; Naipaul R; Peacock S; Potashnik T; Tadrous M; Takhar P; Taylor M; Trudeau M; Wasney D; Gavura S; Chan KKW
Curr Oncol; 2023 Mar; 30(4):3776-3786. PubMed ID: 37185399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study.
Martin DK; Pater JL; Singer PA
Lancet; 2001 Nov; 358(9294):1676-81. PubMed ID: 11728542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation.
Williams I; McIver S; Moore D; Bryan S
Health Technol Assess; 2008 Apr; 12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175. PubMed ID: 18373906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Drug formulary decision-making: Ethnographic study of 3 pharmacy and therapeutics committees.
Schiff GD; Tripathi JB; Galanter W; Paek JL; Pontikes P; Fanikos J; Matta L; Lambert BL
Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2019 Apr; 76(8):537-542. PubMed ID: 30915453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study.
Mielke J; Martin DK; Singer PA
Crit Care Med; 2003 Dec; 31(12):2764-8. PubMed ID: 14668612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. What do district health planners in Tanzania think about improving priority setting using 'Accountability for reasonableness'?
Mshana S; Shemilu H; Ndawi B; Momburi R; Olsen OE; Byskov J; Martin DK
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Nov; 7():180. PubMed ID: 17997824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Describing Sources of Uncertainty in Cancer Drug Formulary Priority Setting across Canada.
Jenei K; Peacock S; Burgess M; Mitton C
Curr Oncol; 2021 Jul; 28(4):2708-2719. PubMed ID: 34287280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Cancer drug funding decisions in Scotland: impact of new end-of-life, orphan and ultra-orphan processes.
Morrell L; Wordsworth S; Fu H; Rees S; Barker R
BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 Aug; 17(1):613. PubMed ID: 28854927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England.
Kieslich K; Littlejohns P
BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e007908. PubMed ID: 26163034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Ranking Decision-Making Criteria for Early Adoption of Innovative Surgical Technologies.
Shoman H; Almeida ND; Tanzer M
JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Nov; 6(11):e2343703. PubMed ID: 37971741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.
Dale E; Peacocke EF; Movik E; Voorhoeve A; Ottersen T; Kurowski C; Evans DB; Norheim OF; Gopinathan U
Health Policy Plan; 2023 Nov; 38(Supplement_1):i13-i35. PubMed ID: 37963078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Access to new cardiovascular therapies in Canadian hospitals: a national survey of the formulary process.
Shalansky SJ; Virk R; Ackman M; Jackevicius C; Kertland H; Tsuyuki R; Humphries K;
Can J Cardiol; 2003 Feb; 19(2):173-9. PubMed ID: 12601443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Patient advocacy group involvement in health technology assessments: an observational study.
Single A; Cabrera A; Fifer S; Tsai J; Paik JY; Hope P
Res Involv Engagem; 2021 Nov; 7(1):83. PubMed ID: 34823610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries?
Scott AM
Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.
Brixner D; Biskupiak J; Oderda G; Burgoyne D; Malone DC; Arondekar B; Niyazov A
J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2021 Aug; 27(8):1096-1105. PubMed ID: 34337998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Use of pharmacoeconomic data in making hospital formulary decisions.
Odedina FT; Sullivan J; Nash R; Clemmons CD
Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2002 Aug; 59(15):1441-4. PubMed ID: 12166044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
