References
- Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, et al. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organization for economic co-operation and development countries. Value in Health. 2014;17:98–108.
- Harris A, Hill SH, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008 Sep/Oct;713–722.
- Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, et al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–1271.
- Svensson M, Nilsson FOL, Arnberg K. Reimbursement decision for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1229–1236.
- Charokopou M, Majer IM, de Raad J, et al. Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendation in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006–2013. Value in Health. 2015;18:284–291.
- World Health Organization. Medical devices. Health technology assessment. [accessed June 5 2018]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en
- Wranik D, Gambold L, Hanson N, et al. The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: can centralization improve the use of economic evaluations? Int J Health Plann Manag. 2017;32:e232–e260.
- pCODR. [citedaccessed Jun 6 2018]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pCODR%27s%20Drug%20Review%20Process/pcodr_perc_deliberative_frame.pdf
- Skedgel C, Wranik WD, Hu M. The relative importance of clinical, economic, patient values and feasibility criteria in cancer drug reimbursement in Canada: a revealed preferences analysis of recommendations of the pan Canadian oncology drug review 2011–2017. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):467–475.
- Linley WG, Hughes DA. Decision-makers’ preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:345–355.
- Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, et al. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):685–693.
- Koopmanshap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment amonth policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(2):192–204.
- Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72:1717–1727.
- Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value in Health. 2011;14:403–413.
- Gu Y, Lancsar E, Ghijben P, et al. Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc Sci Med. 2015;146:41–52.
- Johnson RF, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health. 2013;16:3–13.
- Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–677.
- MacLeod TE, Harris AH, Mahal A. Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: a critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. The Patient ; 2015. 9(3):201-222. Doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0139-7.
- Lanscar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C, et al. Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76:74–82.
- Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26:171–189.
- Jakubczyk M, Kamiński B. Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment. Ann Operations Res. 2017;251(1–2):301–324.
- ObjectPlanet Inc. Opinio survey software: version 1. Ovre Stollsgate 5, 0157 Oslo, Norway. 2018.
- Dummett M. The Borda count and agenda manipulation. Soc Choice Welfare. 1998;15(2):289–296.
- Madani K, Read L, Shalikarian L. Voting under uncertainty: a stochastic framework for analyzing group decision making problems. Water Resources Management. 2014;28(7):1839.
- Klamler C. The Dodgson ranking and the Borda count: a binary comparison. Math Soc Sci. 2004;48:103–108.
- Laffond, G., Laslier F., Le Breton M., Condorcet choice correspondences: a set-theoretical comparison. Math Soc Sci. 1995;30:23–35.