Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A transdisciplinarystudy

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 2, Issue , 2002, Pages 1-5

  Gibson, Jennifer L ^a   Martin, Douglas K ^a   Singer, Peter A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICISM; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; TEAMWORK; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 3342927639     PISSN: 14726963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-2-1     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Scott A, Currie N, Donaldson C: Evaluating innovation in general practice: a pragmatic framework using programme budgeting and marginal analysis. Family Practice 1998, 15:216-22
2. PausJenssen A, Singer PA, Detsky AS: How Ontario's Formulary Committee Makes Recommendations. Pharmacoeconomics 2002
3. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA: Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001, 358:1676-81
4. Ham C, Coulter A: Explicit and implicit rationing: taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2001, 6:163-9
5. Loughlin M: Rationing, barbarity, and the economist's perspective. Health Care Analysis 1996, 4:146-156
6. van der Wilt GJ: Cost-effectiveness analysis of health care services, and concepts of distributive justice. Health Care Analysis 1994, 2:296-305
7. Williams A: Cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it ethical? Journal of Medical Ethics 1992, 18:7-11
8. Singer P, McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J: Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. Journal of Medical Ethics 1995, 21:144-50
9. Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J: Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good? Social Science & Medicine 1993, 37:33-40
10. Russel LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC, for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: Journal of the American Medical Association 1996, 276:1172-7
11. Daniels N: Four unsolved rationing problems. Hastings Center Report 1994, 24:27-9
12. Daniels N, Sabin J: Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997, 26:303-50
13. Rosenfield PL: The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine 1992, 35(11):1343-1357
14. Strauss A, Corbin J: Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. (Edited by: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 1994, 278
15. Daniels N, Sabin JE: Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997, 26(4):303-502
16. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L: Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A Qualitative Study. British Medical Journal 2000, 321:1316-8
17. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA: Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 2001, 358:1676-81
18. Daniels N, Sabin JE: The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 1998, 17(5):50-64
19. Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness in private and public health insurance. In The global challenge of health care rationing (Edited by: A. Coulter and C. Ham) Buckingham, UK: Open University Press 2000, 89-106
20. Hope T, Hicks N, Reynolds DJM, Crisp R, Griffiths S: Rationing and the health authority. British Medical Journal 1998, 317:1067-9