Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 85

1.

Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences.

Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ.

Eur J Health Econ. 2014 May;15(4):389-99. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0482-3. Epub 2013 May 9.

PMID:
23657476
2.

Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment.

Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ.

Soc Sci Med. 2015 Jan;124:48-56. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.022. Epub 2014 Nov 13.

3.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Mukuria C, Keetharuth A, Risa Hole A, Tsuchiya A, Whyte S, Shackley P.

Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):210-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15619389. Epub 2015 Dec 15.

PMID:
26670663
4.

Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities.

Green C.

Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(12):2247-55. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.020. Epub 2009 May 4.

PMID:
19406545
5.

Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives.

McHugh N, Baker RM, Mason H, Williamson L, van Exel J, Deogaonkar R, Collins M, Donaldson C.

BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Mar 7;16:14. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0008-x.

6.

Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.

Wouters S, van Exel J, Baker R, B F Brouwer W.

Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.544. Epub 2017 Jan 5.

PMID:
28212951
7.
8.
9.

Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness: a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries.

Higginson IJ, Gomes B, Calanzani N, Gao W, Bausewein C, Daveson BA, Deliens L, Ferreira PL, Toscani F, Gysels M, Ceulemans L, Simon ST, Cohen J, Harding R; Project PRISMA.

Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):101-10. doi: 10.1177/0269216313488989. Epub 2013 May 23.

PMID:
23703237
10.

Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report.

Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, Buckingham K, Cairns J, Devlin N, Dolan P, Hole AR, Kavetsos G, Longworth L, Rowen D, Tsuchiya A.

Health Technol Assess. 2014 Feb;18(12):vii-xxvi, 1-191. doi: 10.3310/hta18120.

11.

The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation.

Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S.

Health Technol Assess. 2008 Apr;12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175.

12.

Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Keetharuth A, Tsuchiya A, Mukuria C.

Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Feb;14(1):89-104. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y.

13.

Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project.

Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Loomes G, Mason H, Odejar M, Pinto Prades JL, Robinson A, Ryan M, Shackley P, Smith R, Sugden R, Wildman J; SVQ Research Team.

Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(27):1-162. doi: 10.3310/hta14270.

14.

Can the NICE "end-of-life premium" be given a coherent ethical justification?

Cookson R.

J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013 Dec;38(6):1129-48. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2373166. Epub 2013 Aug 23.

PMID:
23974470
15.
16.

Public preferences for health care: prioritisation in the United Kingdom.

Shickle D.

Bioethics. 1997 Jul-Oct;11(3-4):277-90.

PMID:
11654782
17.

NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care.

Shah KK, Cookson R, Culyer AJ, Littlejohns P.

Health Econ Policy Law. 2013 Apr;8(2):145-65. doi: 10.1017/S1744133112000096. Epub 2012 May 1.

PMID:
22717361
18.

Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.

Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM.

Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1-186.

19.
20.

Supplemental Content

Support Center