Toward integration in the context of health technology assessment: The need for evaluative frameworks

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 586-590

  Van Der Wilt, Gert Jan ^a   Gerhardus, Ansgar ^b   Oortwijn, Wija ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evaluative frameworks; Integration; Transparency

Indexed keywords

HEALTH; INTEGRATION; TRANSPARENCY;

EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORKS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; LEGAL ISSUES; LOGIC MODELS; SCOPING; SOCIO-CULTURAL; TOWARD INTEGRATION;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LOGIC; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; SOCIOECONOMICS; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85039958502     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317004354     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Preisler G, Tvingstedt AL, AhlströmM. A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants. Child Care Health Dev. 2002; 28: 403-418
2. Venkatapuram S. Health justice. An argument from the capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2011
3. Anand P. Capabilites and health. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31: 299-303
4. Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P, Welfarism. Extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67: 1190-1198
5. Lorgelly PK, Lawson KD, Fenwick EA, Briggs AH. Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: A role for the capability approach? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010; 7: 2274-2289
6. Canoy M, Faber MJ, Munneke M, et al. Hidden treasures and secret pitfalls: Application of the capability approach to ParkinsonNet. J Parkinsons Dis. 2015; 5: 575-580
7. Richardson HS. Democratic autonomy. Public reasoning about the ends of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002
8. Richardson HS. Practical reasoning about final ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994
9. Wahlster et al. this volume
10. Brereton L, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, et al. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: Methods used in seven European countries. Palliat Med. 2017; 31: 181-192
11. Guba YS, Lincoln EG. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1989
12. Brereton et al. this volume
13. Rohwer A, Booth A, Pfadenhauer L, et al. Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions. http://www. integrate-hta. eu/downloads (accessed August 18, 2017)
14. Lysdahl B, et al. this volume