Prioritizing investments in public health: A multi-criteria decision analysis

Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom)

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 460-466

  Marsh, K ^a   Dolan, P ^b   Kempster, J ^c   Lugon, M ^d  

^a UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d TMKG   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

economics; methods; public health

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ECONOMICS; METHODS; PUBLIC HEALTH;

DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84883467600     PISSN: 17413842     EISSN: 17413850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fds099     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Iqbal Z, Pryce A, Afza M. Rationalizing rationing in health care: Experience of two primary care trusts. J Public Health Med 2006;28(2):125-32
2. Watson V, Carnon A, Ryan M, Cox D. Involving the public in priority setting: A case study using discrete choice experiments. J Public Health Med 2011
3. Department of Health. Health and Social Care Bill. http://www.dh. gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Legislation/Actsandbills/Health andSocialCareBill2011/index.htm 2011a.
4. Department of Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People. http://www.dh. gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicy AndGuidance/DH-121941 2010
5. Department of Health. World Class Commissioning. Competencies. www. dh.gov.uk/worldclasscommissioning 2007
6. Williams I, Bryan S. Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework. Health Policy, 2007;80:13-143
7. Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: A review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(7): Iii, ix-x, 1-175
8. McNeil A, Raw M, West R. Smoking cessation: An evidence-based approach. Eur J Public Health 2000;10(3 Suppl.):15-19
9. Drummond M et al. Assessing the Challenges of Applying Standard Methods of Economic Evaluation to Public Health Interventions. University of York: Public Health Research Consortium 2007
10. Kentaro K et al. Classification of FEE Studies in NHS EED According to ICD-10 Categories. Ottawa: Cochrane Collaboration Colloquium 2004
11. Fox-Rushby J, Boehler C, Hanney S, Roberts I, Beresford P, Buxton M. Prioritisation of Prevention Services: Determining the Applicability of Research from the use to the English Context. London: Health England 2008
12. Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision making. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2010;70(3):346-349
13. NICE. Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of Nice Guidance. London: NICE www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/ socialvaluejudgements/socialvaluejudgements.jsp. 2008
14. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines. A consultation 2011 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/ Liveconsultations/DH-122760
15. Delvin N, Sussex J. Incorporating Multiple Criteria into HTA. London: Office of Health Economics 2011
16. Thokala P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Sheffield: NICE Decision Support Unit 2011
17. Department of Health. Choosing Health. Making Healthy Choices Easier. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-4094550 2004
18. Maciosek MV et al. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: Results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006;31(1):52-61
19. Maciosek MV et al. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: Methods. Am J Prev Med 2006;31(1):90-96
20. Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ. Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006;4:3
21. Doherty J et al. Establishing priorities for national communicable disease surveillance. Can J Infect Dis, 2000;11:21-24
22. USOTA. US Office of Technology Assessment Evaluation of the Oregon Medicaid Proposal. Washington. 1992
23. Heller RF, Gemmell I, Wilson E, Fordham R, Smith RD. Using economic analysis for local priority setting: The population cost-impact approach. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006;5(1):45-54
24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE. 2008
25. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275-283
26. Lyon M. Assessing data quality. Monetary and Financial Statistics. 2008
27. Burgess L. Discrete Choice Experiments. Department of Mathematical Sciences. Sydney: University of Technology http://crsu.Science.Uts. Edu.Au/choice 2007
28. Jones L, James M, Jefferson T, Lushey C, Morleo M, Stokes E, Sumnall H, Witty K, Bellis M. A Review of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions Delivered in Primary and Secondary Schools to Prevent and/or Reduce Alcohol use by Young People Under 18 Years Old. London: NICE 2007