EUR-ASSESS subgroup on priority setting for health technology assessment: Theoretical considerations and practical approaches

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 144-185

  Henshall, Chris ^a   Oortwijn, Wija ^b   Stevens, Andrew ^c   Granados, Alicia ^d   Banta, David ^b  

^a Department of Health ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

^c Natl Coord Ctr Hlth Technol A   (United Kingdom)

^d Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; NETHERLANDS; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MASS COMMUNICATION; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 0031010667     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300010357     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Abel Smith, B., & Mossialos, E. Cost containment and health care reform: A study of the European Union. Health Policy 1994, 28, 89-132.
2. AHCPR. Proposed methodology for establishing priorities for health technology assessments. Federal Register, 1994, 59, 79.
3. Banta, H. D., Oortwijn, W. J., & Van Beekum, W. T. The organization of health care technology assessment in the Netherlands. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 1995.
4. Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1996, 1, 35-43.
5. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment. The place of health technology assessment in the health policy decision making process. Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment, October 1996.
6. Department of Health, NHS Executive Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1996. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1996.
7. Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C. (eds.). Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992.
8. Eddy, D. M. Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 1989, 5, 485-501.
9. Granados, A. Health technology assessment: Methods of technology evaluation. International Conference on Scientific Basis of Health Services, London, October 1995.
10. Granados, A., & Borras, J. M. Technology assessment in Catalonia: Integrating economic appraisal. Social Science of Medicine, 1994, 38, 1643-1646.
11. Lara, M. E., & Goodman, C. (eds.). National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: Report of a pilot study. Priority Setting Group Council on Health Care Technology. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 1990.
12. Oortwijn, W. J., Ament, A. J. H. A., & Vondeling, H. Tools for use of societal criteria in priority setting in evaluation of medical technology in the Netherlands: Development and testing of a checklist. In M. Malek (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference Strategic Issues in Health Care Management March 29-31, 1994, St. Andrews, Scotland. Setting Priorities in Health Care. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, 1994, 203-216.
13. Rico, R., & Asua, J. The prioritisation of evaluation topics of health. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: Osteba, 1996.
14. Townsend, J., & Buxton, M. J. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy, (in press).
15. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying health technologies that work: Searching for evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September. 1994, OTA-H-608.