155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31645144)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control.
Regier DA; Bentley C; Mitton C; Bryan S; Burgess MM; Chesney E; Coldman A; Gibson J; Hoch J; Rahman S; Sabharwal M; Sawka C; Schuckel V; Peacock SJ
Soc Sci Med; 2014 Dec; 122():130-9. PubMed ID: 25441325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature.
Kapiriri L; Razavi D
Health Policy; 2017 Sep; 121(9):937-946. PubMed ID: 28734682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature.
Cromwell I; Peacock SJ; Mitton C
BMC Health Serv Res; 2015 Apr; 15():164. PubMed ID: 25927636
[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. The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.
Teerawattananon Y; Tantivess S; Yamabhai I; Tritasavit N; Walker DG; Cohen JT; Neumann PJ
Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Dec; 14(1):86. PubMed ID: 27912780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A rapidly changing global medicines environment: How adaptable are funding decision-making systems?
Leopold C; Morgan SG; Wagner AK
Health Policy; 2017 Jun; 121(6):637-643. PubMed ID: 28449884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care.
de Groot F; Capri S; Castanier JC; Cunningham D; Flamion B; Flume M; Herholz H; Levin LÅ; Solà-Morales O; Rupprecht CJ; Shalet N; Walker A; Wong O
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2017 Apr; 15(2):119-126. PubMed ID: 27766548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. How do cost-effectiveness analyses inform reimbursement decisions for oncology medicines in Canada? The example of sunitinib for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Chabot I; Rocchi A
Value Health; 2010; 13(6):837-45. PubMed ID: 20561332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. "There is always a better way": Managing uncertainty in decision making about new cancer drugs in Canada.
Driedger SM; Cooper E; Annable G; Brouwers M
Int J Health Plann Manage; 2018 Apr; 33(2):e485-e499. PubMed ID: 29417619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Continental Divide? The attitudes of US and Canadian oncologists on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies associated with new cancer drugs.
Berry SR; Bell CM; Ubel PA; Evans WK; Nadler E; Strevel EL; Neumann PJ
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Sep; 28(27):4149-53. PubMed ID: 20697077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis.
Defechereux T; Paolucci F; Mirelman A; Youngkong S; Botten G; Hagen TP; Niessen LW
BMC Health Serv Res; 2012 Feb; 12():39. PubMed ID: 22335815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evidence, economics and ethics: resource allocation in health services organizations.
Gibson JL; Martin DK; Singer PA
Healthc Q; 2005; 8(2):50-9, 4. PubMed ID: 15828568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Ethical considerations relating to healthcare resource allocation decisions.
Olver I; Dodds S; Kenner J; Kerridge I; McGovern K; Milligan E; Mortimer R;
Intern Med J; 2019 Nov; 49(11):1364-1367. PubMed ID: 31713342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Value assessment in oncology drugs: funding of drugs for metastatic breast cancer in Canada.
Lemieux J; Audet S
Curr Oncol; 2018 Jun; 25(Suppl 1):S161-S170. PubMed ID: 29910659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
