Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients

Inger M Janssen1 Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, University of Bielefeld, BielefeldCorrespondence[email protected]

Fueloep Scheibler2 Department of Non-Drug Interventions, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne

Ansgar Gerhardus3 Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen;4 Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Pages 2491-2500 | Published online: 13 Dec 2016

Cite this article
CrossMark

Full Article
Figures & data
References
Citations
Metrics
Licensing
Reprints & Permissions
View PDF PDF

References

FaceyKBoivinAGraciaJPatients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberationInt J Technol Assess Health Care201026333434020584364
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
FaceyKMHansenHPPatient-focused HTAsInt J Technol Assess Health Care201127427327422004766
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
DomecqJPPrutskyGElraiyahTPatient engagement in research: a systematic reviewBMC Health Serv Res2014148924568690
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
MuhlbacherACJuhnkeCPatienten- und Bürgerpartizipation in der Entscheidungsfindung im Gesundheitswesen insbesondere bei der Bewertung von Arzneimitteln [Involving patients, the insured and the general public in healthcare decision making]Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes2016110–1113644 German
Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine (US)Committee on Quality of Health Care in AmericaCrossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st CenturyWashington, DCNational Academy Press2001
Google Scholar
RyanMKinghornPEntwistleVAFrancisJJValuing patients’ experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methodsSoc Sci Med201410619420324568844
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
JanssenIMGerhardusASchroer-GuntherMAScheiblerFA descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care contextHealth Expect20151861873189325156207
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
MuhlbacherACJuhnkeCPatient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?Appl Health Econ Health Policy201311316318023529716
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Urquhart-SecordRCraigJCHemmelgarnBPatient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis: an international nominal group technique studyAm J Kidney Dis201668344445426968042
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
JanssenIMGerhardusAvon GersdorffGDPreferences of patients undergoing hemodialysis – results from a questionnaire-based study with 4,518 patientsPatient Prefer Adherence2015984785526170634
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
StoffelMPBarthCLauterbachKWBaldamusCAEvidence-based medical quality management in dialysis – part I: routine implementation of QiN, a German quality management systemClin Nephrol200462320821815481853
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Biomarkers Definitions Working GBiomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual frameworkClin Pharmacol Ther2001693899511240971
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
HigginsJGreenS homepage on the InternetCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration2011 Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.orgAccessed November 9, 2016
Google Scholar
SchünemannHBrożekJOxmanAGRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation. Version 3.2 [updated March 2009]The GRADE Working Group2009 Available from: http://www.cc-ims.net/gradepro
Google Scholar
WahlsterPGoetghebeurMKrizaCNiederlanderCKolominsky-RabasPNational Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMNBalancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)BMC Health Serv Res20151526226152122
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
GargonEGurungBMedleyNChoosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic reviewPLoS One201496e9911124932522
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
KalsbeekWHeissGBuilding bridges between populations and samples in epidemiological studiesAnnu Rev Public Health20002114716910884950
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
TyrerSHeymanBSampling in epidemiological research: issues, hazards and pitfallsBJPsych Bull2016402576027087985
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
NeumarkDEStommelMGivenCWGivenBAResearch design and subject characteristics predicting nonparticipation in a panel survey of older families with cancerNurs Res200150636336811725938
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
MarshKIJMThokalaPMultiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task forceValue Health201619212513727021745
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
AngelisAKanavosPValue-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessmentPharmacoeconomics201634543544626739955
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
GagnonMPDesmartisMLepage-SavaryDIntroducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiencesInt J Technol Assess Health Care2011271314221262085
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
HaileyDWerkoSBakriRInvolvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agenciesInt J Technol Assess Health Care2013291798323217279
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
TongAMannsBHemmelgarnBEstablishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus WorkshopAm J Kidney DisIn press2016
Web of Science ®Google Scholar
GagnonMPDesmartisMGagnonJFramework for user involvement in health technology assessment at the local level: views of health managers, user representatives, and cliniciansInt J Technol Assess Health Care2015311–2687725952585
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Share icon
Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

People also read
Recommended articles
Cited by

To cite this article:

Reference style: APA Chicago Harvard

Citation copied to clipboard

Reference styles above use APA (6th edition), Chicago (16th edition) & Harvard (10th edition)

Download citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by citation management software including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks and Reference Manager.

Choose format: RIS BibTex RefWorks Direct Export

Choose options: Citation Citation & abstract Citation & references

Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients

References

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients

References

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date