143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30975390)
21. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AT NATIONAL LEVEL: A STUDY FROM IRAN.
Yazdizadeh B; Shahmoradi S; Majdzadeh R; Doaee S; Bazyar M; Souresrafil A; Olyaeemanesh A
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(3):181-9. PubMed ID: 27524462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Pharmaceutical cost-containment policy: experiences in Shanghai, China.
Hu S; Chen W; Cheng X; Chen K; Zhou H; Wang L
Health Policy Plan; 2001 Dec; 16 Suppl 2():4-9. PubMed ID: 11772985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Stakeholders' feedback on the proposed recommendations for updating the patented medicine prices review board (pmprb) budget impact analysis guidelines.
Foroutan N; Tarride JE; Xie F; Jameel B; Mills F; Levine M
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):e1-e24. PubMed ID: 31922700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Involving the public in epidemiological public health research: a qualitative study of public and stakeholder involvement in evaluation of a population-wide natural policy experiment.
Anderson de Cuevas R; Nylén L; Burström B; Whitehead M
BMJ Open; 2018 Apr; 8(4):e019805. PubMed ID: 29678973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective.
Cookson R; Hutton J
Health Policy; 2003 Feb; 63(2):167-78. PubMed ID: 12543529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Implementing and using quality measures for children's health care: perspectives on the state of the practice.
Shaller D
Pediatrics; 2004 Jan; 113(1 Pt 2):217-27. PubMed ID: 14702504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. A determination of topics for health technology assessment in Thailand: making decision makers involved.
Lertpitakpong C; Chaikledkaew U; Thavorncharoensap M; Tantivess S; Praditsitthikorn N; Youngkong S; Yothasamut J; Udomsuk K; Sinthitichai K; Teerawattananon Y
J Med Assoc Thai; 2008 Jun; 91 Suppl 2():S100-9. PubMed ID: 19253492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Influenza vaccination policy-making processes in France and The Netherlands: Framework and determinants.
Silva ML; Perrier L; Paget JW; Mosnier A; Buthion V; Cohen JM; Späth HM
Health Policy; 2016 Mar; 120(3):293-305. PubMed ID: 26806677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The influence of fiscal rules on healthcare policy in the United States and the Netherlands.
Schakel HC; Jeurissen P; Glied S
Int J Health Plann Manage; 2017 Oct; 32(4):595-607. PubMed ID: 27678005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: AN EXAMPLE FROM PALLIATIVE CARE.
Brereton L; Wahlster P; Mozygemba K; Lysdahl KB; Burns J; Polus S; Tummers M; Refolo P; Sacchini D; Leppert W; Chilcott J; Ingleton C; Gardiner C; Goyder E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(5):552-561. PubMed ID: 28868993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A tall order on a tight timeframe: stakeholder perspectives on comparative effectiveness research using electronic clinical data.
Holve E; Lopez MH; Scott L; Segal C
J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Sep; 1(5):441-51. PubMed ID: 24236421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Stakeholders involvement by HTA Organisations: why is so different?
Cavazza M; Jommi C
Health Policy; 2012 May; 105(2-3):236-45. PubMed ID: 22364715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Execution of a participatory supportive return to work program within the Dutch social security sector: a qualitative evaluation of stakeholders' perceptions.
Lammerts L; Schaafsma FG; van Mechelen W; Anema JR
BMC Public Health; 2016 Apr; 16():323. PubMed ID: 27074885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A qualitative study of design stakeholders' views of developing and implementing a registry-based learning health system.
Dixon-Woods M; Campbell A; Chang T; Martin G; Georgiadis A; Heney V; Chew S; Van Citters A; Sabadosa KA; Nelson EC
Implement Sci; 2020 Mar; 15(1):16. PubMed ID: 32143678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in The Netherlands.
Stolk EA; de Bont A; van Halteren AR; Bijlmer RJ; Poley MJ
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2009 Feb; 9(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 19371181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Leaving No One Behind: Participatory Technology Appraisal as a Platform for Agenda Setting to Address Disparities in Access to Health Services in Thailand.
Tantivess S; Doungthipsirikul S
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2019; 35(4):340-345. PubMed ID: 31292013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: Methods used in seven European countries.
Brereton L; Ingleton C; Gardiner C; Goyder E; Mozygemba K; Lysdahl KB; Tummers M; Sacchini D; Leppert W; Blaževičienė A; van der Wilt GJ; Refolo P; De Nicola M; Chilcott J; Oortwijn W
Palliat Med; 2017 Feb; 31(2):181-192. PubMed ID: 27280411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Involving stakeholders and developing a policy for stakeholder involvement in the European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA.
Nielsen CP; Lauritsen SW; Kristensen FB; Bistrup ML; Cecchetti A; Turk E;
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Dec; 25 Suppl 2():84-91. PubMed ID: 20030895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
