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.
83 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22226141)
1. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective. Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Thorsteinsdóttir H; Daar AS; Martin DK Health Policy; 2012 May; 105(2-3):226-35. PubMed ID: 22226141 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison. Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Daar AS; Thorsteinsdóttir H; Martin DK Health Policy; 2011 Apr; 100(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 20961647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees. Anell A Eur J Health Econ; 2004 Feb; 5(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 15452762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Do reassessments reduce the uncertainty of decision making? Reviewing reimbursement reports and economic evaluations of three expensive drugs over time. Sandmann FG; Franken MG; Steenhoek A; Koopmanschap MA Health Policy; 2013 Oct; 112(3):285-96. PubMed ID: 23628483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Lopes E; Street J; Carter D; Merlin T Health Expect; 2016 Apr; 19(2):331-44. PubMed ID: 25703958 [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. Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Lopes E; Carter D; Street J Soc Sci Med; 2015 Jun; 135():84-91. PubMed ID: 25950114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions--the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Culyer AJ Healthc Q; 2005; 8(3):56-60. PubMed ID: 16078403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Transparency in Canadian public drug advisory committees. Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Bayoumi AM Health Policy; 2014 Nov; 118(2):255-63. PubMed ID: 25217840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Challenges to pharmaceutical policymaking: lessons from Australia's national medicines policy. Lipworth W; Doran E; Kerridge I; Day R Aust Health Rev; 2014 May; 38(2):160-8. PubMed ID: 24589424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Martin DK; Abelson J; Singer PA J Health Serv Res Policy; 2002 Oct; 7(4):222-9. PubMed ID: 12425781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand. Leopold C; Lu CY; Wagner AK BMC Health Serv Res; 2020 Apr; 20(1):351. PubMed ID: 32334579 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Pharmacoeconomic analysis in formulary decisions: an international perspective. Johnson JA; Bootman JL Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Oct; 51(20):2593-8. PubMed ID: 7847423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Madden S; Martin DK; Downey S; Singer PA Health Policy; 2005 Jul; 73(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 15911053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Medicines reclassification from a pharmaceutical industry perspective: An international qualitative study. Gauld NJ; Kelly FS; Emmerton LM; Kurosawa N; Bryant LJM; Buetow SA Res Social Adm Pharm; 2019 Apr; 15(4):387-394. PubMed ID: 30917892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A National Approach to Reimbursement Decision-Making on Drugs for Rare Diseases in Canada? Insights from Across the Ponds. Short H; Stafinski T; Menon D Healthc Policy; 2015 May; 10(4):24-46. PubMed ID: 26142357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]