ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Advancing the WHO-INTEGRATE Framework as a Tool for Evidence-Informed, Deliberative Decision-Making Processes: Exploring the Views of Developers and Users of WHO Guidelines.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies.Health economics, policy, and law · 2021Article
- Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Integrating philosophy, policy and practice to create a just and fair health service.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- Ethics education and moral decision-making in clinical commissioning: an interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?The International journal of health planning and management · 2017Article
- Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.The patient · 2016Review
- The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2016Article
- Accountability for reasonableness: the relevance, or not, of exceptionality in resource allocation.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden.International journal of health policy and management · 2014Article
- Research for better health: the Panamanian priority-setting experience and the need for a new process.Health research policy and systems · 2014Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Enhancement Enabling Health Technologies and Their Discourses: What Is Discussed within the Health Domain?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2013Article
- Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.BMC family practice · 2012Article
- A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting.Health research policy and systems · 2011Article
- Allocating funds for HIV/AIDS: a descriptive study of KwaDukuza, South Africa.Health policy and planning · 2011Article
- Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework: Perceptions of stakeholders.BMC health services research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine.
designQualitative study using case studies and grounded theory.
settingTwo committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada.
participantsThe two committees and their 26 members.
main outcome measuresAccounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings.
resultsSix interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions.
conclusionThese domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.