FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2130603008> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2130603008 endingPage "315" @default.
• W2130603008 startingPage "313" @default.
• W2130603008 abstract "Most health care systems internationally have to face the problem of how to allocate limited resources across interventions and programs. This is true for any collectively funded system, whether financed from general taxation, private or social insurance, or a mix of sources. In part this relates to decisions about which medical technologies to fund and, in particular, whether to devote the system’s resources to the numerous new pharmaceuticals, devices, and procedures that become available each year. Health technology assessment (HTA) offers a broad set of tools to support these types of decisions including systematic review, analysis of clinical studies and routine administrative data, health outcome measurement and valuation, and economic evaluation. Jurisdictions differ in the way they use these tools. Some systems, such as those in Germany and the public sector systems in the US, use largely clinical evidence from trials, perhaps augmented with information on the impact of technology adoption on the system’s budget. In contrast, an increasing number of systems, including those in the UK, Canada, and Australia, inform decisions by synthesizing clinical evidence more formally with data on costs and patients’ health outcomes using cost-effectiveness analysis. Despite this variety of ways in which HTA is used to support decision making, there are common issues that the HTA research community has sought to inform. The most appropriate ways in which HTA is used to inform decisions is one such issue. For example, in this issue of Medical Decision Making, Stevens and Longson describe the process by which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses HTA to support decision making on new pharmaceuticals and other technologies in England and Wales and the challenges faced in using HTA for this purpose. Taking an international perspective, Neumann and others have reported on the extent to which 14 organizations using HTA to support decisions adhere to a series of key principles suggested by the International Working Group for HTA Advancement and organized into 4 broad areas: the structure of the program, methods, processes, and use of HTA in decision making. The review demonstrated considerable variation across organizations in the extent to which these principles were evident in the process and methods used. Another important issue relating to the use of HTA to support decisions across a range of health systems is methodological uncertainty: Is the range of available HTA methods appropriate and fit for the purpose of informing decisions? Because many health systems have sought to use evidence and analysis to support resource allocation, questions have arisen about the adequacy of existing practices and the need for methodologists to sharpen the tools in the HTA toolbox. A key challenge, however, is to characterize the major gaps in existing methods and to set priorities for methods research. To a large extent the scientific community has determined these priorities through the work it undertakes. Indeed, there has been a flow of methods research for HTA, much of it published in this journal. For example, this issue sees contributions on the methods of systematic review with the purpose of speeding up the process of identifying new studies; various methods to estimate parameters relevant to HTA decisions, including the derivation of preference-based measures of health from disease-specific, patient-reported outcome From the University of York, York, UK (MS)." @default.
• W2130603008 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2130603008 creator A5060049178 @default.
• W2130603008 date "2013-03-21" @default.
• W2130603008 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2130603008 title "Methods Development for Health Technology Assessment" @default.
• W2130603008 cites W1993697463 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W1999005999 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2019006320 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2048092642 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2048445399 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2113928450 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2118406374 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2120962896 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2121932021 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2136440701 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2143920727 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2148629544 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2159097286 @default.
• W2130603008 cites W2916030609 @default.
• W2130603008 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13480564" @default.
• W2130603008 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23519879" @default.
• W2130603008 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2130603008 type Work @default.
• W2130603008 sameAs 2130603008 @default.
• W2130603008 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2130603008 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2130603008 hasAuthorship W2130603008A5060049178 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C21333345 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConcept C89702864 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C112930515 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C160735492 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C162324750 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C17744445 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C199539241 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C21333345 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C41008148 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C50522688 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C71924100 @default.
• W2130603008 hasConceptScore W2130603008C89702864 @default.
• W2130603008 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2130603008 hasLocation W21306030081 @default.
• W2130603008 hasLocation W21306030082 @default.
• W2130603008 hasOpenAccess W2130603008 @default.
• W2130603008 hasPrimaryLocation W21306030081 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W173349486 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2013693545 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2027143192 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2138183513 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2396150622 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2396610290 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2414434858 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2437584104 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W2909594249 @default.
• W2130603008 hasRelatedWork W53303746 @default.
• W2130603008 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W2130603008 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2130603008 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2130603008 magId "2130603008" @default.
• W2130603008 workType "article" @default.