Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework

References

• The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment [Web site]. Edmonton: INAHTA; 2016. [Cited Jan 2018]. Available at: http://www.inahta.org.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Medical devices, health technology assessment. [web site]. Geneva: WHO; 2016. [Cited Jan 2018]. Available at: http://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;17:1000–2.
   Google Scholar
• Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(2):144–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian H, Scheibler F, Knelangen M, Zschorlich B, Nasser M, Waltering A. Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):348–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulácsi L, Boncz I, Drummond M. Issues for countries considering introducing the “fourth hurdle”. The case of Hungary. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(3):337–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg M, van der Grinten T, Klazinga N. Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):35–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes a success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(43).
   Google Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngkong S, Tromp N, Chitama D. The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9:16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):376–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decision making. Cost Eff ResourAlloc. 2012;10(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102(2—3):126–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(04):456–465.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluddemann A, Heneghan C, Thompson M, Roberts N, Summerton N, Linden-Phillips L, et al. Prioritization criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):310–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EPC topic nomination and selection. Bethesda: U.S.: Department of Health & human services;2015
   Google Scholar
• Jankauskiene D, Petronyte G. A model for HTA priority setting: experience in Lithuania. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):450–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):341–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):44–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mørland B, Ringard Å, Røttingen J-A. Supporting tough decisions in Norway: a healthcare system approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(04):398–404.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Technology appraisal topic selection; 2015 [cited Jan 2018]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/topic-selection.
   Google Scholar
• The Netherlands Organisation of Health Research and Development. ZonMw summary assessment procedure; 2012 [cited Jan 2018]. Available at: https://www.zonmw.nl/en/about-zonmw/working-methods/.
   Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baltussen R, Youngkong S, Paolucci F, Niessen L. Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):262–264
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA. Methods and processes. London; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health. 2012;35(3):460–466.
   Google Scholar
• Livet M, Haines ST, Curran GM, Seaton T, Ward C, Sorensen T, Roth McClurg M. Implementation Science to Advance Care Delivery: A Primer for Pharmacists and Other Health Professionals. Pharmacotherapy. 2018.https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar