Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
Oortwijn, Wija  
dc.contributor.author
Husereau, Don  
dc.contributor.author
Abelson, Julia  
dc.contributor.author
Barasa, Edwine  
dc.contributor.author
Bayani, Diana  
dc.contributor.author
Canuto Santos, Vania  
dc.contributor.author
Culyer, Anthony  
dc.contributor.author
Facey, Karen  
dc.contributor.author
Grainger, David  
dc.contributor.author
Kieslich, Katharina  
dc.contributor.author
Ollendorf, Daniel  
dc.contributor.author
Pichón-riviere, Andres  
dc.contributor.author
Sandman, Lars  
dc.contributor.author
Strammiello, Valentina  
dc.contributor.author
Teerawattananon, Yot  
dc.date.available
2023-11-07T12:49:34Z  
dc.date.issued
2022-06  
dc.identifier.citation
Oortwijn, Wija; Husereau, Don; Abelson, Julia; Barasa, Edwine; Bayani, Diana; et al.; Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force; Cambridge University Press; International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care; 38; 1; 6-2022; 1-16  
dc.identifier.issn
0266-4623  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/217262  
dc.description.abstract
Objectives Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. Methods The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review. Results A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. Conclusions The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.  
dc.format
application/pdf  
dc.language.iso
eng  
dc.publisher
Cambridge University Press  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.subject
DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES  
dc.subject
GUIDANCE  
dc.subject
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT  
dc.subject
PARTICIPATION  
dc.subject
STAKEHOLDERS  
dc.subject.classification
Políticas y Servicios de Salud  
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias de la Salud  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS MÉDICAS Y DE LA SALUD  
dc.title
Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article  
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion  
dc.date.updated
2023-11-06T15:28:24Z  
dc.journal.volume
38  
dc.journal.number
1  
dc.journal.pagination
1-16  
dc.journal.pais
Reino Unido  
dc.journal.ciudad
Cambridge  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Oortwijn, Wija. Radboud University Medical Center; Países Bajos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Husereau, Don. University of Ottawa; Canadá  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Abelson, Julia. Mcmaster University; Canadá  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Barasa, Edwine. Wellcome Trust Research Laboratories Nairobi; Kenia  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Bayani, Diana. Nanyang Technological University. Singapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering; Singapur  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Canuto Santos, Vania. No especifíca;  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Culyer, Anthony. University of York; Reino Unido  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Facey, Karen. No especifíca;  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Grainger, David. No especifíca;  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Kieslich, Katharina. Universidad de Viena; Austria  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Ollendorf, Daniel. Tufts University; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Pichón-riviere, Andres. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Sandman, Lars. Linköping University; Suecia  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Strammiello, Valentina. No especifíca;  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Teerawattananon, Yot. No especifíca;  
dc.journal.title
International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/designing-and-implementing-deliberative-processes-for-health-technology-assessment-a-good-practices-report-of-a-joint-htaiispor-task-force/852D6A319FAF2A9A6BC5C9CF4329D36D  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462322000198