ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2002
The role of evidence in health policy making: a normative perspective.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Age, risk, and life expectancy in Norwegian intensive care: a registry-based population modelling study.PloS one · 2015Article
- Making use of equity sensitive QALYs: a case study on identifying the worse off across diseases.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2014Article
- Debating the desirability of new biomedical technologies: lessons from the introduction of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2012Article
- An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2008Article
- Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of evidence is becoming a central part of health policy decisions--not least in limit setting decisions. Limit-setting decisions can be defined as the withholding of potentially beneficial health care. This article seeks to explore the value choices related to the use of evidence in limit-setting decisions at the political level. To better specify the important but restricted role of evidence in such decisions, the value choices of relevance are discussed explicitly. Four criteria are often considered when setting limits: 1. The severity of disease if untreated or treated by standard care 2. The effectiveness of the new technology 3. The cost-effectiveness of the new technology 4. The quality of evidence on (1)-(3) The production and assessment of evidence is important for each criterion, but several points are identified where the practice of evidence-based medicine could be further developed to capture a broader spectrum of ethical and political concerns that such decisions naturally evoke among citizens.
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.