IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v82y2007i1p37-50.html

Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice

Author

Listed:
  • Abelson, Julia
  • Giacomini, Mita
  • Lehoux, Pascale
  • Gauvin, Francois-Pierre

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:82:y:2007:i:1:p:37-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(06)00175-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Eyles, John & McLeod, Christopher B. & Collins, Patricia & McMullan, Colin & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier, 2003. "Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 95-106, October.
    2. Sheila Jasanoff, 2003. "(No?) Accounting for expertise," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 157-162, June.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2005. "Impacts of Advances in Medical Technology in Australia," Research Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 17, January.
    4. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    5. Sue Mayer, 2003. "Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 177-181, June.
    6. Battista, Renaldo N. & Banta, H. David & Jonnson, Egon & Hodge, Matthew & Gelband, Hellen, 1994. "Lessons from the eight countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-3), pages 397-421.
    7. Jane Aronson, 1993. "Giving Consumers a Say in Policy Development: Influencing Policy or Just Being Heard?," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 19(4), pages 367-378, December.
    8. Ida-Elisabeth Andersen & Birgit Jæger, 1999. "Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 331-340, October.
    9. Wiseman, V. & Mooney, G. & Berry, G. & Tang, K. C., 2003. "Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1001-1012, March.
    10. Daniels, Norman & Sabin, James E., 2002. "Setting Limits Fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195149364.
    11. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518, September.
    12. Contandriopoulos, Damien, 2004. "A sociological perspective on public participation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 321-330, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    2. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    3. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    4. Colombier, Carsten & Weber, Werner, 2009. "Projecting health-care expenditure for Switzerland: further evidence against the 'red-herring' hypothesis," MPRA Paper 26747, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2009.
    5. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2006. "Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 312-319, May.
    6. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    7. Croft, Charlotte & Currie, Graeme & Staniszewska, Sophie, 2016. "Moving from rational to normative ideologies of control over public involvement: A case of continued managerial dominance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 124-132.
    8. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    9. Rob Baltussen & Elly Stolk & Dan Chisholm & Moses Aikins, 2006. "Towards a multi‐criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 689-696, July.
    10. Stahl, B.C. & Andreou, A. & Brey, P. & Hatzakis, T. & Kirichenko, A. & Macnish, K. & Laulhé Shaelou, S. & Patel, A. & Ryan, M. & Wright, D., 2021. "Artificial intelligence for human flourishing – Beyond principles for machine learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 374-388.
    11. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Askildsen, Jan Erik & Holmås, Tor Helge & Kaarboe, Oddvar, 2010. "Prioritization and patients' rights: Analysing the effect of a reform in the Norwegian hospital sector," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 199-208, January.
    13. Sofaer, Neema & Kapiriri, Lydia & Atuyambe, Lynn M. & Otolok-Tanga, Erasmus & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair?: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 33-42, June.
    14. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    16. Bonny Parkinson, 2013. "Pharmaceutical policy in Australia. CHERE Working Paper 2013/01," Working Papers 2013/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    17. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    18. Gritsenko, Daria, 2024. "Advancing UN digital cooperation: Lessons from environmental policy and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Evelien Tonkens & Imrat Verhoeven, 2019. "The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1595-1610, June.
    20. Terkel Christiansen & Kelly Dunham & Jørgen Lauridsen & Carl Hampus Lyttkens & Kathryn Mcdonald & Alistair Mcguire & Carine Milcent, 2009. "The influence of economic incentives and regulatory factors on the adoption of treatment technologies: a case study of technologies used to treat heart attacks," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-03168477, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:82:y:2007:i:1:p:37-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.