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]
