A rapid needs assessment of the provision of Health Technology Assessment in the south-west peninsula

Journal of Public Health

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 157-164

  Elston, Julian ^a   Stein, Ken ^a  

^a PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessment; Decision making; Evidence; Health Technology Assessment; Needs; Rapid

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; NEEDS ASSESSMENT;

EID: 35348868818     PISSN: 17413842     EISSN: 17413850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdm001     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Department of Health, A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS. London: Department of Health, 1998.
2. Department of Health, Standards for Better Health. London: Department of Health, 2006.
3. Sir Nigel Crisp. Commissioning a Patient-led NHS. London: Department of Health, 2005.
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.
5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to Technolog Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.
6. DH NICE Liaison team. Good Practice Guidance on Managing the Introduction of New Healthcare Interventions and Links to NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance. London: Department of Health, 2006.
7. Department of Health. Selection Criteria for Referral of Topics to NICE. London: Department of Health, July 2006.
8. Carlisle D. A furore too far: the widespread disquiet undermining NICE. Hlth Serv J 2006;116(6011):14-15.
9. Webster C. The National Health Service. A Political History, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
10. Wanless D, Jones N, Anderson R. et al. Securing Good Health for the Whole Population. Final Report. London: HM Treasury, 2004.
11. Department of Health. Shifting the Balance of Power within the NITS. Securing Delivery. London: HMSO, 2001.
12. Department of Public Health and Epidemiology. Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham, 2006.
13. Midland Therapeutics Review and Advisory Committee (MTRAC). Constitution. Keele: Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, 2004.
14. Development and Evaluation Committee. http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/ rapidhta/, 2000.
15. Department of Health, Creating a Patient-led NHS. Delivering the NHS Improvement Plan. London: Department of Health, 2005.
16. Stevens A, Raftery J. Introduction. In: Stevens A, Raftery J (eds). Health Care Needs Assessment. The Epidemiological/)! Based Needs Assessment Revieiw, 2nd series. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1997, xxxii-xliv.
17. Keen J, Packwood T. Case study evaluation. BMJ 1995;311:444-6.
18. May T. Social research. Issues, Methods and Process, 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997.
19. Elston J, Fulop N. Perceptions of partnership. A documentary analysis of Health Improvement Programmes. Public Health 2002;116:207-13.
20. Abbott S, Shaw S, Elston J. Comparative analysis of health policy implementation. The use of documentary analysis. Policy Stud 2004;25(4):259-66.
21. INAHTA. A Checklist for Health Technology Assessment Reports. Stockholm, Sweden: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Secretariat, 2001.
22. Fontana A, Frey JH, Interviewing. The art of science. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998:47-78.
23. Jones S. Depth interviewing. In: Walker R (ed.). Applied Qualitative Research, Aldershot: Gower, 1985:45-55.
24. Yin RK. Case Study Research. Design and methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
25. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001;323:743-5.
26. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to Single Technolog)' Appraisal (STA) process. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006.
27. Coleman P, Nicholl J. Organisational context for quality: lessons from the fields of organisational development and change management. Quality in Health Care 2001;10:229-37.