Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 139

1.

Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process.

Abelson J, Bombard Y, Gauvin FP, Simeonov D, Boesveld S.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Jul;29(3):282-9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000299. Erratum in: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):466.

PMID:
23863188
2.

Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach.

Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP.

Soc Sci Med. 2011 Jul;73(1):135-44. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.017. Epub 2011 May 23.

PMID:
21664018
3.

The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review.

Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A.

Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 6. Review.

4.

Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.

Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, Papaioannou D, Shippam A.

Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Review.

5.

Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.

Menon D, Stafinski T.

Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):282-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x.

6.

Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?

Stafinski T, Menon D, Yasui Y.

Health Expect. 2014 Apr;17(2):278-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00749.x. Epub 2012 Feb 2.

7.

Citizens' participation in the Italian health-care system: the experience of the Mixed Advisory Committees.

Serapioni M, Duxbury N.

Health Expect. 2014 Aug;17(4):488-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00775.x. Epub 2012 Apr 19.

8.

Strengthening international patient advocacy perspectives on patient involvement in HTA within the HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group - Commentary.

Wale JL, Scott AM, Bertelsen N, Meade N; HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG).

Res Involv Engagem. 2017 Jan 10;3:3. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0053-8. eCollection 2017.

9.

Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment.

Whitty JA, Littlejohns P.

Health Policy. 2015 Feb;119(2):127-36. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003. Epub 2014 Sep 16.

PMID:
25267072
10.

Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience.

Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, Jorgensen B, Brouwers MC, Easty T, Zahn C.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):299-309.

PMID:
17579931
11.

Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario.

Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, Krahn M, Levin L, Oh P, Perera C.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Apr;25(2):141-50. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309090199. Review.

PMID:
19366496
12.

Do consumer voices in health-care citizens' juries matter?

Krinks R, Kendall E, Whitty JA, Scuffham PA.

Health Expect. 2016 Oct;19(5):1015-22. doi: 10.1111/hex.12397. Epub 2015 Sep 28. Review.

13.

An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations.

Whitty JA.

Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.011.

14.

Evaluating the use of citizens' juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation.

Henderson J, House E, Coveney J, Meyer S, Ankeny R, Ward P, Calnan M.

BMC Public Health. 2013 Jun 19;13:596. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-596.

15.

FRAMEWORK FOR USER INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: VIEWS OF HEALTH MANAGERS, USER REPRESENTATIVES, AND CLINICIANS.

Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Tantchou MD, Légaré F.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015 Jan;31(1-2):68-77. doi: 10.1017/S0266462315000070. Epub 2015 May 8.

PMID:
25952585
16.

Does the community want devolved authority? Results of deliberative polling in Ontario.

Abelson J, Lomas J, Eyles J, Birch S, Veenstra G.

CMAJ. 1995 Aug 15;153(4):403-12.

17.

Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: a qualitative public deliberation study.

Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP.

Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Nov;21(11):1197-201. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.300. Epub 2013 Jan 23.

18.

[A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020].

Fischer F, Lewith G, Witt CM, Linde K, von Ammon K, Cardini F, Falkenberg T, Fønnebø V, Johannessen H, Reiter B, Uehleke B, Weidenhammer W, Brinkhaus B.

Forsch Komplementmed. 2014;21(2):e1-16. doi: 10.1159/000360744. Epub 2014 Mar 24.

19.

Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH.

Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):341-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000383. Review.

PMID:
20584365
20.

From passive subject to active agent: the potential of Citizens' Juries for nursing research.

Iredale R, Longley M.

Nurse Educ Today. 2007 Oct;27(7):788-95. Epub 2006 Dec 8. Review.

PMID:
17157967

Supplemental Content

Support Center