ArticleSocial justice research2019
Innovation as a value in healthcare priority-setting: the UK experience.
Article in Social justice research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality of Life With Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome/Joint Hypermobility Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Interventions.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Device-Aided Therapies in Parkinson's Disease: A Structured Review.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2021Pooled it
- Excluded by design: a qualitative study of inequalities in health and social care innovation.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Health technology assessment and innovation: here to help or hinder?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Review
- An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Review
- Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): An Updated Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Review
- How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment.Health economics review · 2022Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Innovation Pathways in the NHS: An Introductory Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Review
- The Assessment of the Innovativeness of a New Medicine in Italy.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- Guiding Pay-As-You-Live Health Insurance Models Toward Responsible Innovation in Health.Journal of participatory medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
All healthcare systems operate with limited resources and therefore need to set priorities for allocating resources across a population. Trade-offs between maximising health and promoting health equity are inevitable in this process. In this paper, we use the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an example to examine how efforts to promote healthcare innovation in the priority-setting process can complicate these trade-offs. Drawing on NICE guidance, health technology assessment reports and relevant policy documents, we analyse under what conditions NICE recommends the National Health Service fund technologies of an "innovative nature", even when these technologies do not satisfy NICE's cost-effectiveness criteria. Our findings fail to assuage pre-existing concerns that NICE's approach to appraising innovative technologies curtails its goals to promote health and health equity. They also reveal a lack of transparency and accountability regarding NICE's treatment of innovative technologies, as well as raising additional concerns about equity. We conclude that further research needs to evaluate how NICE can promote health and health equity alongside healthcare innovation and draw some general lessons for healthcare priority-setting bodies like NICE.
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.