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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23588012)

  • 41. Doctors in society. Medical professionalism in a changing world.
    Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians
    Clin Med (Lond); 2005; 5(6 Suppl 1):S5-40. PubMed ID: 16408403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Engaging patients in health research: identifying research priorities through community town halls.
    Etchegary H; Bishop L; Street C; Aubrey-Bassler K; Humphries D; Vat LE; Barrett B
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 Mar; 17(1):192. PubMed ID: 28284232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Public consultation. Up and ATAM (aims, timing, audience, method).
    Khan U
    Health Serv J; 1998 Apr; 108(5602):32-3. PubMed ID: 10180417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Engaging civil society through deliberative dialogue to create the first Mental Health Strategy for Canada: Changing Directions, Changing Lives.
    Mulvale G; Chodos H; Bartram M; MacKinnon MP; Abud M
    Soc Sci Med; 2014 Dec; 123():262-8. PubMed ID: 25147056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Synthesis: what can we learn from international experience?
    Ham C
    Br Med Bull; 1995 Oct; 51(4):819-30. PubMed ID: 8556291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care.
    Jones IR; Berney L; Kelly M; Doyal L; Griffiths C; Feder G; Hillier S; Rowlands G; Curtis S
    Soc Sci Med; 2004 Jul; 59(1):93-102. PubMed ID: 15087146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?
    Mitton C; Patten S
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2004 Jul; 9(3):146-52. PubMed ID: 15272972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The rationing debate. Defining a package in healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case against.
    Klein R
    BMJ; 1997 Feb; 314(7079):506-9. PubMed ID: 9056806
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.
    Maluka S; Kamuzora P; San Sebastiån M; Byskov J; Olsen ØE; Shayo E; Ndawi B; Hurtig AK
    Soc Sci Med; 2010 Aug; 71(4):751-9. PubMed ID: 20554365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Health care in common: setting priorities in Oregon.
    Garland MJ; Hasnain R
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(5):16-8. PubMed ID: 2121665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Public health. Evening all.
    Coote A; Kendall L
    Health Serv J; 1998 Nov; 108(5632):30-1. PubMed ID: 10187645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders.
    Cartier Y; Creatore MI; Hoffman SJ; Potvin L
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 Jun; 16(1):53. PubMed ID: 29933748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Choosing between competing health priorities. A government payer perspective.
    Leese J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1996; 9 Suppl 3():4-7; discussion 23-5. PubMed ID: 10160486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries.
    Lenaghan J
    Health Policy; 1999 Oct; 49(1-2):45-61. PubMed ID: 10827290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. District health systems in a neoliberal world: a review of five key policy areas.
    Segall M
    Int J Health Plann Manage; 2003; 18 Suppl 1():S5-26. PubMed ID: 14661938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting.
    Oliver A; Mossialos E; Robinson R
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2004; 20(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 15176172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Healthcare Resource Allocation and Priority-setting. A European Challenge.
    Di Costanzo C
    Eur J Health Law; 2020 Mar; 27(2):93-114. PubMed ID: 33652412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparing the preferences of health professionals and members of the public for setting health care priorities : experiences from Australia.
    Wiseman V
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2005; 4(2):129-37. PubMed ID: 16162032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Deference or deliberation: rethinking the judicial role in the allocation of healthcare resources.
    Syrett K
    Med Law; 2005 Jun; 24(2):309-22. PubMed ID: 16082867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.