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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29949648)

  • 1. Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting.
    Reckers-Droog V; van Exel J; Brouwer W
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(6):e0198761. PubMed ID: 29949648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.
    Nicolet A; van Asselt ADI; Vermeulen KM; Krabbe PFM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0235666. PubMed ID: 32645035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Does it matter whose opinion we seek regarding the allocation of healthcare resources? - a case study.
    Kolasa K; Lewandowski T
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2015 Dec; 15():564. PubMed ID: 26683840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?
    Reckers-Droog V; van Exel J; Brouwer W
    Value Health; 2019 Dec; 22(12):1441-1449. PubMed ID: 31806201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.
    Wouters S; van Exel J; Baker R; B F Brouwer W
    Value Health; 2017 Jan; 20(1):107-117. PubMed ID: 28212951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.
    Chim L; Salkeld G; Kelly P; Lipworth W; Hughes DA; Stockler MR
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(3):e0172971. PubMed ID: 28249013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare.
    Quintal C
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2009; 7(2):121-36. PubMed ID: 19731969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment.
    Skedgel C; Wailoo A; Akehurst R
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Jan; 35(1):94-105. PubMed ID: 25145575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Population Preferences for Performance and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Choice-Based Conjoint Survey.
    Ploug T; Sundby A; Moeslund TB; Holm S
    J Med Internet Res; 2021 Dec; 23(12):e26611. PubMed ID: 34898454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting.
    Dieteren CM; Reckers-Droog VT; Schrama S; de Boer D; van Exel J
    Health Expect; 2022 Feb; 25(1):333-344. PubMed ID: 34845790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea.
    Bae EY; Lim MK; Lee B; Bae G; Hong J
    Health Policy; 2023 Dec; 138():104932. PubMed ID: 37924559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries.
    Mason H; van Exel J; Baker R; Brouwer W; Donaldson C;
    Soc Sci Med; 2016 Oct; 166():205-213. PubMed ID: 27575932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Community views on factors affecting medicines resource allocation: cross-sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.
    Chim L; Salkeld G; Kelly PJ; Lipworth W; Hughes DA; Stockler MR
    Aust Health Rev; 2019 Jul; 43(3):254-260. PubMed ID: 29669674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities.
    Green C
    Soc Sci Med; 2009 Jun; 68(12):2247-55. PubMed ID: 19406545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are some QALYs more equal than others?
    van de Wetering EJ; van Exel NJ; Rose JM; Hoefman RJ; Brouwer WB
    Eur J Health Econ; 2016 Mar; 17(2):117-27. PubMed ID: 25479937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients.
    Reckers-Droog V; van Exel J; Brouwer W
    Value Health; 2021 Aug; 24(8):1182-1192. PubMed ID: 34372984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes.
    Boxebeld S; Geijsen T; Tuit C; Exel JV; Makady A; Maes L; van Agthoven M; Mouter N
    Soc Sci Med; 2024 Jan; 341():116536. PubMed ID: 38176245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.
    Wiseman V; Mooney G; Berry G; Tang KC
    Soc Sci Med; 2003 Mar; 56(5):1001-12. PubMed ID: 12593873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Patient preferences for healthcare delivery through community pharmacy settings in the USA: A discrete choice study.
    Feehan M; Walsh M; Godin J; Sundwall D; Munger MA
    J Clin Pharm Ther; 2017 Dec; 42(6):738-749. PubMed ID: 28627110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.