Erratum: Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process-Erratum (International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19:3 (282-2289) Doi:.10.1017/S0266462313000299);Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 282-289

  Abelson, Julia ^a   Bombard, Yvonne ^b   Gauvin, François Pierre ^c   Simeonov, Dorina ^d   Boesveld, Sarah ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Health Council of Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Deliberative methods; Health policy; Health technology assessment; Public engagement; Public involvement; Social values

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING;

DELIBERATIVE METHODS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; SOCIAL VALUES;

HEALTH;

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER SCREENING; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84880414037     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000299     Document Type: Erratum

References (25)

1. Gauvin F-P, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis J. Moving cautiously-Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess. 2011;27:43-49.
2. Gauvin F-P, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis J. "It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518-1526.
3. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P. Bringing 'The Public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:37-50.
4. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253-268.
5. Reuzel RPB, vander Wilt GJ, ten Have HAMJM, de Bries Robb́e PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium.JMed Philos. 2001;26:245-261.
6. Moran R, Davidson P. An uneven spread: A review of public involvement in the National Institute of Health Research's Health Technology Assessment program. Int J Technol Assess. 2011;27:343-347.
7. Royle J, Oliver J. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment process. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493-497.
8. Einsiedel EF, Ross H. Animal spare parts?ACanadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:579-591.
9. Blacksher E, Diebel A, Forest P-G, Goold S, Abelson J. What is public deliberation? Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:14-17.
10. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282-293.
11. Jones M, Einsiedel E. 2011. Institutional policy learning and public consultation: The Canadian xenotransplantation experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:655-662.
12. Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, et al. Citizens' values regarding research with stored samples from newborn screening in Canada. Pediatrics. 2012;129:239-247.
13. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E. A citizens council in the making: Dilemmas for citizens and their hosts. In: Littlejohns P, Rawlins M, eds. Patients, the public and priorities in healthcare. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2009:129-138.
14. DeVries R, Stanczyk A, Wall I, et al. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1896-1903.
15. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting:Ascoping review. HealthPolicy. 2009;91:219-228.
16. Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Admin Rev. 1979;39:426-431.
17. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E. Citizens at the centre: Deliberative participation in health care decisions. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press; 2006.
18. Pathak-Sen E. Ordinary people, extraordinary wisdom. In: Littlejohns P, Rawlins M, eds. Patients, the public and priorities in healthcare. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2009:81-88.
19. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess. 2009;25:141-150.
20. Public Engagement Subcommittee of the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. Final report of the public engagement subcommittee. In OHTAC Reports (Ed.). Toronto: Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2007.
21. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135-144.
22. Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health, 2010;33:77-84.
23. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. Screening methods for early detection of colorectal cancers and polyps. September 2009. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/tech/recommend/ rec-crc-20090928.pdf (accessed April 24, 2012).
24. Priest L. Ontario now paying for breast cancer test. Globe and Mail, March 9, 2010, A6.
25. Oliver S, Armes D, Gyte G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme (Executive summary). London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006:12. http://www.hta.ac.uk/public/evaluation-execsumm.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010).