Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue SUPPL.S1, 2009, Pages 178-181

  Drummond, Michael ^a   Banta, David ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c NONE   (France)

Author keywords

Decision making; Health planning; Health technology assessment; History; The United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

BRITAIN; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; POLICY MAKERS; PRESENT SITUATION; THE UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED KINGDOM; VALUE FOR MONIES;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; PLANNING; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY;

HEALTH;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

GREAT BRITAIN; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 75149122409     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309090618     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Buxton MJ, Acheson R, Caine N, et al. Costs and benefits of the heart transplant programmes at Harefield and Papworth Hospitals. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1985
2. Buxton MJ. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1133-1142
3. Buxton MJ. Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology the case of heart transplants. In: Drummond MF, ed. Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987:103-118.
4. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q. 1993;71:411-437.
5. Cochrane A. Effectiveness and efficiency. Abingdon, England: Burgess & Son; 1972.
6. House of Commons. White Paper. Realising our potential: A strategy for science, engineering and technology. London: House of Commons; 1993.
7. House of Lords. Select Committee on Science and Technology. Priorities in medical research. London: HMSO; 1988.
8. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2007. http://www.nice.org.uk.
9. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. Br Med J. 2004;329:999-1003.
10. Spiby J. Health care technology in the United Kingdom. In: Office of Technology Assessment. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:241-274.
11. Stocking B. The management of medical technology in the United Kingdom. In: Office of Technology Assessment, The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Background paper no. 4. The management of health care technology in ten countries. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1980:11-24.
12. Woolf S, Henshall C. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:591-625.