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.
236 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29739463)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. COST-EFFECTIVENESS IMPACTS CANCER CARE FUNDING DECISIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, EVIDENCE FROM 1998 TO 2008. Ismail Z; Peacock SJ; Kovacic L; Hoch JS Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(4):481-486. PubMed ID: 28871898 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials. Cressman S; Browman GP; Hoch JS; Kovacic L; Peacock SJ Oncologist; 2015 Jul; 20(7):729-36. PubMed ID: 26032135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Watt AM; Hiller JE; Braunack-Mayer AJ; Moss JR; Buchan H; Wale J; Riitano DE; Hodgetts K; Street JM; Elshaug AG; Implement Sci; 2012 Oct; 7():101. PubMed ID: 23088222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada. Brubacher LJ; Lovato CY; Sriram V; Cheng M; Berman P Health Res Policy Syst; 2024 Jun; 22(1):66. PubMed ID: 38831457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers. Smith N; Mitton C; Peacock S; Cornelissen E; MacLeod S BMC Health Serv Res; 2009 Sep; 9():165. PubMed ID: 19754969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020. Fischer F; Lewith G; Witt CM; Linde K; von Ammon K; Cardini F; Falkenberg T; Fønnebø V; Johannessen H; Reiter B; Uehleke B; Weidenhammer W; Brinkhaus B Forsch Komplementmed; 2014; 21(2):e1-16. PubMed ID: 24851850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. O'Doherty KC; Burgess MM Public Health Genomics; 2009; 12(4):203-15. PubMed ID: 19367089 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Expensive cancer drugs: a comparison between the United States and the United Kingdom. Faden RR; Chalkidou K; Appleby J; Waters HR; Leider JP Milbank Q; 2009 Dec; 87(4):789-819. PubMed ID: 20021586 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Deliberative engagement methods on health care priority-setting in a rural South African community. Tugendhaft A; Hofman K; Danis M; Kahn K; Erzse A; Twine R; Gold M; Christofides N Health Policy Plan; 2021 Sep; 36(8):1279-1291. PubMed ID: 34051093 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Street J; Duszynski K; Krawczyk S; Braunack-Mayer A Soc Sci Med; 2014 May; 109():1-9. PubMed ID: 24657639 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems. Peacock SJ; Regier DA; Raymakers AJN; Chan KKW Healthc Manage Forum; 2019 Nov; 32(6):293-298. PubMed ID: 31645144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions. Gauvreau CL; Wight L; Subasri M; Palmer A; Hayeems R; Croker A; Abelson J; Fraser B; Bombard Y; Moore Hepburn C; Wilson MG; Denburg A Health Expect; 2023 Apr; 26(2):715-727. PubMed ID: 36639959 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]