The usefulness of NICE guidance in practice: Different perspectives of managers, clinicians, and patients

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 317-322

  Owen Smith, Amanda ^a   Coast, Joanna ^b   Donovan, Jenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Doctor patient relationships; Guideline implementation; NICE; Patient knowledge; Rationing

Indexed keywords

DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIPS; GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION; NICE; PATIENT KNOWLEDGE; RATIONING;

DECISION MAKING;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CONSULTATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORBID OBESITY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; UNITED KINGDOM; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BREAST TUMOR; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; OBESITY; PATIENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HEALTH FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; OBESITY; PATIENTS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 78049418359     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000346     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: Guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England andWales. Health Econ. 2002;11:185-191.
2. Chantler C. Healthcare technology assessment: A clinical perspective. Int J Technol Assess. 2004;20:87-91.
3. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess. 2004;20:92-96.
4. Dakin HA, Devlin N, Odeyemi I. Yes, no, or yes, but? Multinominal modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77:352-367.
5. Department of Health. The NHS constitution for England. London: HMSO; 2009.
6. Gagnon MP, Sanchez E, Pons JMV. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess. 2006;22:169-176.
7. Gallego G, van Gool K, Kelleher D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment inAustralia:Views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess. 2009;25:134-140.
8. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; 1967.
9. Hawkes N. NICE goes global. BMJ. 2009;338:266-267.
10. Hitchen L. NICE recommendations have had little effect on multiple sclerosis services five years on. BMJ. 2008;337:a734.
11. House of Commons Health Committee. NICE (1st report on 2007-08 session). London: HMSO; 2008.
12. Kmietowicz Z. Nearly two thirds of people with diabetes in England don't receive all recommended care, audit finds. BMJ. 2009;339:b2685.
13. Littlejohns P, Garner S, Doyle N, Macbeth F, Barnett D, Longson C. 10 years of NICE: Still growing and still controversial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:417-424.
14. NICE. About NICE. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ (accessed August 17, 2009).
15. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess. 2004;20:1-10.
16. Owen-Smith A, Coast J, Donovan J. "I can see where they're coming from, but when you're on the end of it you just want to get the money and the drug.": Explaining reactions to explicit healthcare rationing. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:1935-1942.
17. Owen-Smith A, Coast J, Donovan J. The desirability of being open about health care rationing decisions: Findings from a qualitative study of patients and clinical professionals. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2010;15:14-20.
18. Richards M. Variations in use of cancer drugs approved by NICE. London: Department of Health; 2004.
19. Richards M. Usage of cancer drugs approved by NICE. London: Department of Health; 2006.
20. 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. BMJ. 2004;329:999.
21. WHO. Health technology and health policymaking in Europe. Copenhagen: WHO; 2008.