Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level

Australian Health Review

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 520-527

  Gallego, Gisselle ^a   Fowler, Sandra ^a   van Gool, Kees ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLASSIFICATION; EDUCATION; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; KNOWLEDGE; MASS COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESIDENTIAL CARE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CATCHMENT AREA (HEALTH); DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HEALTH FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; KNOWLEDGE; NEW SOUTH WALES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 56849108507     PISSN: 01565788     EISSN: 14498944     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1071/AH080520     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Griffith G. Commonwealth-state responsibilities for health: "Big Bang" or incremental? Briefing Paper No. 17/2006. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales, 2006.
2. Hall J. Incremental change in the Australian health care system. Health Aff (Millwood) 1999; 18: 95-110.
3. Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien JA. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study. Health Policy 2007; 84: 58-66.
4. Cancer Institute New South Wales. Review of ambulatory/outpatient chemotherapy and haematology services in New South Wales. Cancer Institute NSW, 2005. Available at: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/ cancer_inst/profes/ambulatory_care.html (accessed May 2007).
5. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia: Productivity Commission research report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission, 2005.
6. New South Wales Health Department. Model policy for the safe introduction of new interventional procedures into clinical practice: a model policy for area health services and other public health organisations. 2003. Available at: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/archive/ cib/circulars/2003/cir2003-84.pdf (accessed Nov 2006).
7. Weekes LM, Brooks C. Drug and therapeutics committees in Australia: expected and actual performance. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 551-7.
8. Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, et al. A model for best practice HTA. CHERE working paper 2008/1. Sydney: Centre for Health Economic Research Evaluation, 2008.
9. Spigelman AD. Governance and innovation: experience with a policy on the introduction of new interventional procedures. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76: 9-13.
10. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Health care priority setting: principles, practice and challenges. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2004; 2: 3.
11. Northern Sydney Central Coast Health. Annual Report 2004-2005. NSCCH, 2005. Available at: http://www.nsccahs.health.nsw.gov.au/publications/ NSCCH-2004-05-AR.pdf (accessed May 2007).
12. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative methods in health and health service research. In: Mays N, Pope C, editors. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996: 1-9.
13. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998.
14. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 2002.
15. Minichiello V. In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Longman, 1995.
16. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21: 263-7.
17. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD, 2005.
18. Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values? BMJ 2004; 329: 1233-6.