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.
138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37732455)
21. CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS? Husereau D; Henshall C; Sampietro-Colom L; Thomas S Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):191-199. PubMed ID: 27766998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Van Haesendonck L; Ruof J; Desmet T; Van Dyck W; Simoens S; Huys I; Giuliani R; Toumi M; Dierks C; Dierks J; Cardone A; Houÿez F; Pavlovic M; Berntgen M; Mol PGM; Schiel A; Goettsch W; Gianfrate F; Capri S; Ryan J; Ducournau P; Solà-Morales O; Julian E J Mark Access Health Policy; 2023; 11(1):2217543. PubMed ID: 37284060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. Gagnon MP; Lepage-Savary D; Gagnon J; St-Pierre M; Simard C; Rhainds M; Lemieux R; Gauvin FP; Desmartis M; Légaré F BMC Health Serv Res; 2009 Mar; 9():54. PubMed ID: 19327160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study. van Overbeeke E; Janssens R; Whichello C; Schölin Bywall K; Sharpe J; Nikolenko N; Phillips BS; Guiddi P; Pravettoni G; Vergani L; Marton G; Cleemput I; Simoens S; Kübler J; Juhaeri J; Levitan B; de Bekker-Grob EW; Veldwijk J; Huys I Front Pharmacol; 2019; 10():1395. PubMed ID: 31849657 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot. Scott AM; Wale JL; Res Involv Engagem; 2017; 3():2. PubMed ID: 29062527 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Demonstrating the influence of HTA: INAHTA member stories of HTA impact. Werkö SS; Merlin T; Lambert LJ; Fennessy P; Galán AP; Schuller T Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Nov; 37():e8. PubMed ID: 33148373 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment? Wale JL; Chandler D; Collyar D; Hamerlijnck D; Saldana R; Pemberton-Whitely Z Front Med Technol; 2021; 3():796344. PubMed ID: 35146487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action. Wale JL; Thomas S; Hamerlijnck D; Hollander R Res Involv Engagem; 2021 Jan; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 33402216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: Health Technology Assessment. Hunter A; Facey K; Thomas V; Haerry D; Warner K; Klingmann I; May M; See W Front Med (Lausanne); 2018; 5():231. PubMed ID: 30238004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Patient-Oriented Research Competencies in Health (PORCH) for patients, healthcare providers, decision-makers and researchers: protocol of a scoping review. Mallidou AA; Frisch N; Doyle-Waters MM; MacLeod MLP; Ward J; Atherton P Syst Rev; 2018 Jul; 7(1):101. PubMed ID: 30025543 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries? Scott AM Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Patient advocacy group involvement in health technology assessments: an observational study. Single A; Cabrera A; Fifer S; Tsai J; Paik JY; Hope P Res Involv Engagem; 2021 Nov; 7(1):83. PubMed ID: 34823610 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience. Howard S; Scott IA; Ju H; McQueen L; Scuffham PA Aust Health Rev; 2019 Oct; 43(5):591-599. PubMed ID: 30205873 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. LOCAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN CANADA: CURRENT STATE AND NEXT STEPS. Martin J; Polisena J; Dendukuri N; Rhainds M; Sampietro-Colom L Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(3):175-80. PubMed ID: 27491840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Value added medicines: what value repurposed medicines might bring to society? Toumi M; Rémuzat C J Mark Access Health Policy; 2017; 5(1):1264717. PubMed ID: 28265347 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]