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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35969981)

  • 1. Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting.
    Schoon R; Chi C
    Soc Sci Med; 2022 Sep; 309():115223. PubMed ID: 35969981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment.
    Schoon R; Chi C; Liu TC
    Soc Sci Med; 2022 Dec; 315():115404. PubMed ID: 36410140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care - evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens' juries.
    Whitty JA; Littlejohns P; Ratcliffe J; Rixon K; Wilson A; Kendall E; Burton P; Chalkidou K; Scuffham PA
    J Med Econ; 2023; 26(1):1237-1249. PubMed ID: 37738383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries.
    Scuffham PA; Ratcliffe J; Kendall E; Burton P; Wilson A; Chalkidou K; Littlejohns P; Whitty JA
    BMJ Open; 2014 May; 4(5):e005437. PubMed ID: 24793259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.
    Whitty JA; Burton P; Kendall E; Ratcliffe J; Wilson A; Littlejohns P; Scuffham PA
    Int J Health Policy Manag; 2014 Jul; 3(2):57-62. PubMed ID: 25114943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.
    Ryan M; Scott DA; Reeves C; Bate A; van Teijlingen ER; Russell EM; Napper M; Robb CM
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(5):1-186. PubMed ID: 11262422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?
    Stafinski T; Menon D; Yasui Y
    Health Expect; 2014 Apr; 17(2):278-90. PubMed ID: 22296492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries.
    Degeling C; Rychetnik L; Street J; Thomas R; Carter SM
    Soc Sci Med; 2017 Apr; 179():166-171. PubMed ID: 28285232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Developing and applying a deductive coding framework to assess the goals of Citizen/Community Jury deliberations.
    Scott AM; Sims R; Degeling C; Carter S; Thomas R
    Health Expect; 2019 Jun; 22(3):537-546. PubMed ID: 30864216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome.
    Gooberman-Hill R; Horwood J; Calnan M
    Health Expect; 2008 Sep; 11(3):272-81. PubMed ID: 18816323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments.
    Watson V; Carnon A; Ryan M; Cox D
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2012 Jun; 34(2):253-60. PubMed ID: 22173912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Dutch Citizen Forum on Public Reimbursement of Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Opinion Change.
    Jansen M; Baltussen R; Bijlmakers L; Tummers M
    Int J Health Policy Manag; 2022 Feb; 11(2):118-127. PubMed ID: 32610763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Trading off accuracy and explainability in AI decision-making: findings from 2 citizens' juries.
    van der Veer SN; Riste L; Cheraghi-Sohi S; Phipps DL; Tully MP; Bozentko K; Atwood S; Hubbard A; Wiper C; Oswald M; Peek N
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2021 Sep; 28(10):2128-2138. PubMed ID: 34333646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial.
    Carman KL; Mallery C; Maurer M; Wang G; Garfinkel S; Yang M; Gilmore D; Windham A; Ginsburg M; Sofaer S; Gold M; Pathak-Sen E; Davies T; Siegel J; Mangrum R; Fernandez J; Richmond J; Fishkin J; Siu Chao A
    Soc Sci Med; 2015 May; 133():11-20. PubMed ID: 25828260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Which public and why deliberate?--A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research.
    Degeling C; Carter SM; Rychetnik L
    Soc Sci Med; 2015 Apr; 131():114-21. PubMed ID: 25770463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.
    Whitty JA; Lancsar E; Rixon K; Golenko X; Ratcliffe J
    Patient; 2014; 7(4):365-86. PubMed ID: 24872225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?
    Lenaghan J; New B; Mitchell E
    BMJ; 1996 Jun; 312(7046):1591-3. PubMed ID: 8664672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.
    Denburg AE; Ungar WJ; Chen S; Hurley J; Abelson J
    Health Policy; 2020 Jun; 124(6):647-658. PubMed ID: 32405121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.