ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2017
Fair Processes for Priority Setting: Putting Theory into Practice Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of policy narratives on evidence-informed decision-making in health policy - an analysis of Swedish healthcare policies from 1992 to 2024.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Fair Healthcare Practices in Orthopedics Assessed with a New Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM): A Decade of Advancing Knowledge and Influencing Global Health Policy (2013-2023).International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies.Health economics, policy, and law · 2021Article
- Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
- A multicriteria resource allocation model for the redesign of services following birth.BMC health services research · 2018Review
- Ethics in HTA: Examining the "Need for Expansion".International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness.International journal of health policy and management · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA and underlies the current assessment-appraisal split. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.
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.