Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 341-347

  Husereau, Don ^a   Boucher, Michel ^a   Noorani, Hussein ^a  

^a CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomedical; Health priorities; Organizational objectives; Priority setting; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; BIOMEDICAL; COMMITTEE MEMBERS; CONSISTENCY INDEX; CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION; DELIBERATIVE PROCESS; ECONOMIC IMPACTS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; PRIORITIZATION; PRIORITY SETTING; RESEARCH AGENCY; RESEARCH PRIORITIES; RESEARCH PROPOSALS; SELECTION COMMITTEE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

DECISION THEORY; HEALTH; MANAGEMENT SCIENCE; RATING; TECHNOLOGY;

RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BUDGET; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CANADA; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; STANDARD;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; CANADA; HEALTH PRIORITIES; ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 78049425115     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000383     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Battista RN, Cǒté B, Hodge MJ, Husereau D. Health technology assessment in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):53-60.
2. Culyer AJ, Lomas J. Deliberative processes and evidenceinformed decision making in healthcare: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357-371.
3. Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD. Multicriteria analysis: A manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
4. Donaldson MS, Sox HC, eds. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: Amodel process.Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
5. Doyle J, Waters E, Yach D, et al. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:193-197.
6. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258.
7. Eddy DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:484-501.
8. Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidence-based care: 1. Setting priorities: How important is the problem? Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:1249-1254.
9. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144-185.
10. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policymakers perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239-244.
11. Lara ME, Goodman C. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy press; 1990.
12. Menon D, Stafinski T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 2):S14-S19.
13. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Med Decis Making. 2005;429-436.
14. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310-315.
15. Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703-723.
16. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Models, methods, concepts& applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.
17. Schwarzer R, Siebert U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305-314.
18. Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: Methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-94.