Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 591-625

  Woolf, Steven H ^a   Henshall, Chris ^b  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b United Kingdom Department of Health   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomedical; Delivery of health care; Technology assessment; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; RESEARCH; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE REFORM; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNIVERSAL COVERAGE;

EID: 0033866304     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462300101175     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Appleby, J., Walshe, K., & Ham, C. Acting on the evidence. A review of clinical effectiveness: Sources of information, dissemination, and implementation, Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, 1997.
2. Blendon, R., Leitman, R., Morrison, I., & Donelan, K. Satisfaction with health systems in ten nations. Health Affairs, 1990, 10, 185-92.
3. Brook, R. H., Kosecoff, J. B., Park, R. E., et al. Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: Comparison of doctors' attitudes in the USA and the UK. Lancet, 1988, 1, 750-53.
4. Carruthers, J. Contracting and choice. British Medical Bulletin, 1995, 51, 914-26.
5. Chalmers, I., & Altman, D. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995.
6. Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of health care. Milbank Quarterly, 1993, 71, 411-37.
7. Chantler, C., & Maynard, A. Should trusts be allowed to fail? If failure is inevitable, the process should be planned and managed. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 1566.
8. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996.
9. Culyer report. Supporting research and development in the NHS. London: HMSO, 1994.
10. Department of Health. Working for Patients. London: HMSO. 1989.
11. Department of Health. Research for health: A research and development strategy for the NHS. London: Department of Health, 1991.
12. Department of Health. Assessing the effects of health technologies: Principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health, 1992.
13. Department of Health. Research for health. London: Department of Health, 1993.
14. Department of Health. Public health common data set. 1993, Volume 1. London: Institute of Public Health, University of Surrey, 1994.
15. Department of Health. Fit for the future. Second progress report on health of the nation. London: HMSO. 1995.
16. Department of Health. A framework for commissioning cancer services. Report of the Calman-Hine Working Group. London: Department of Health, 1995.
17. Department of Health. Pediatric intensive care: A framework for the future. London: Department of Health, 1997.
18. Department of Health. Press release, June 1, 1997.
19. Dunning, M., McQuay, H., & Milne, R. Getting a GriP. Health Services Journal, 1994, 104, 24-26.
20. Ennis, J., Cooper, A., Henshall, C., et al. The NHS research and development information systems strategy. Healrh Libraries Review, 1994, 11, 227-34.
21. Entwistle, V. A., Watt, I. S., Bradbury, R., & Pehl, L. J. Media coverage of the Child B case. British Medical Journal, 1996, 312, 1587-91.
22. Entwistle, V., Watt, I., Davis, H., et al. Developing informational material to present the findings of technology assessment to consumers. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1998, 14, 47-70.
23. Entwistle, V., Watt, I. S., & Herring, J. E. Information about health care effectiveness: An introduction for consumer health information providers. London: King's Fund, 1996.
24. Freemantle, N. Dealing with uncertainty: Will science solve the problems of resource allocation in the UK NHS? Social Science and Medicine, 1995, 40, 1365-70.
25. Gray, J. A. M. Evidence-based healthcare: How to make health policy and management decisions. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
26. Ham, C. Priority setting in the NHS: Reports from six districts. In Rationing in action. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1993, 59-71.
27. Ham, C. The organisation of the NHS. In P. Merry, & C. Ham (eds.), NHS handbook, 1996/97, 11th ed. Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, JMH Publishing, 1996, 27-39.
28. Health Committee. Priority setting in the NHS: Purchasing, Health Committee, first report. London: HMSO, 1995.
29. Honigsbaum, F., Calltorp, J., Ham, C., & Holmstrsm, S. Priority setting processes for healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1995.
30. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Medical research and the NHS reforms London: HMSO, June 1995.
31. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Priorities in medical research. London: HMSO, 1988.
32. Hunter, D. Health policy overview. In P. Merry, & C. Ham (eds.), NHS handbook, 1996/97, 11th ed. Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, JMH Publishing, 1996, 153-55.
33. Levitt, R., Wall, A., & Appleby, J. The reorganized National Health Service, 5th ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
34. McGinn, P. R. Britain to dismantle national health service reforms. American Medical News 1997, June 9, 1997, pp. 8, 10.
35. Mays, N. The future of locality commissioning. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 1212-13.
36. Moore, W. Hard choices: Priority setting in the NHS. Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, 1996.
37. National Audit Office. Health of the nation: A progress report. Report by the comptroller and auditor general. London: HMSO, 1996.
38. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report 4. York: University of York, 1996.
39. NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1995/96. EL(94)55. London: Department of Health, 1994.
40. NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1996/97. EL(95)68. London: Department of Health, 1995.
41. NHS Executive. Clinical guidelines: Using clinical guidelines to improve patient care within the NHS. London: Department of Health, 1996.
42. NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1997/98. London: Department of Health, 1996.
43. NHS Executive. Promoting clinical effectiveness: A framework for action in and through the NHS. London: Department of Health, 1996.
44. NHS Executive. Report of the NHS health technology assessment programme, 1996 London: Department of Health, 1996.
45. Nuffield Institute for Health and NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Implementing clinical practice guidelines. Effective health care bulletin, 1994.
46. O'Brien, B. J., Buxton, M. J., & Ferguson, B. Measuring the effectiveness of heart transplantation programmes: Quality of life data and their relationship to survival analysis. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1995 (suppl. 1), 40, 137S-53S.
47. Office of Health Economics. Compendium of health statistics. London: Office of Health Economics, 1995.
48. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The reform of health care: A comparative analysis of seven OECD countries. Paris: OECD, 1992.
49. Parliament. Social insurance and allied services. Report by Sir William Beveridge. Cmnd. 6502. London: HMSO, 1942.
50. Peckham, M. J. Research and development for the National Health Service. Lancet, 1991, 338, 367-71.
51. Redmayne, S. Small steps, big goals: Purchasing policies in the NHS. Birmingham: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, 1996.
52. Roberts, H. Children, inequalities, and health. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 1122-25.
53. Rosser, J., Watt, I. S., & Entwistle, V. Informed choice initiative: An example of reaching users with evidence-based information. Journal of Clinical Effectiveness, 1996, 1, 143-45.
54. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., et al. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 1996, 312, 71-72.
55. Sheldon, T. A. Quality: Link with effectiveness. Quality in Health Care, 1994 (suppl. 3), S41-45.
56. Sheldon, T. A., & Borowitz, M. Changing the measure of quality in the NHS: From purchasing activity to purchasing protocols. Quality in Health Care, 1993, 2, 149-50.
57. Sheldon, T. A., & Chalmers, I. The UK Cochrane Centre and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Respective roles within the information systems strategy of the NHS Research and Development Programme, coordination and principles underlying collaboration. Health Economics, 1994, 3, 201-03.
58. Sheldon, T. A., & Faulkner, A. Vetting new technologies: Those whose efficacy and safety have not been established will not be registered and evaluated. British Medical Journal. 1996, 313, 508.
59. Sheldon, T. A., Liberati, A., Banta, H. D., et al. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup on Methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1997, 13, 186-219.
60. Sheldon, T. A., & Melville, A. Providing intelligence for rational decision-making in the NHS: The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Journal of Clinical Effectiveness, 1996, 1, 1-4.
61. Spiby, J. Health care technology in the United Kingdom. In Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995, 249-54.
62. Stevens, A., Colin-Jones, D., & Gabbay, J. Quick and clean: Authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting. Health Trends, 1995, 27, 37-42.
63. Stevens, A., & Raftery, J. Health care needs assessment: The epidemiologically based needs assessment reviews. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1997.
64. Stevens, A., Robert, G., & Gabbay, J. Identifying new health care technologies in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1997, 13, 59-67.
65. Stradling, J. Sleep apnoea and the misuse of evidence-based medicine. Lancet, 1997, 349, 201-02.
66. University of Leeds. The treatment of persistent glue ear in children. Effective health care bulletin. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1992.
67. Walshe, K., & Ham, C. Who's acting on the evidence? Health Services Journal, April 3, 1997. 22-25.
68. Warden, J. Ending two-tierism is top priority for new health secretary. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 1434.
69. Warden, J. Review of NHS spending begins. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 1781.
70. White paper. Realising our potential: A strategy for science, engineering and technology, 1993.
71. Working Party on Inequalities in Health. DHHS report of the working party on inequalities in health (black report). London: HMSO, 1980.
72. Wright, J. Johns, R., Watt. I., et al. Health effects of obstructive sleep apnoea and the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure: A systematic review of the research evidence. British Medical Journal, 1997, 314, 851-60.