1.Arnstein, SR (2019) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 85(1), 24–34.
2.Tritter, JQ, McCallum, A (2006) The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy. 76(2), 156–168.
3.Fredriksson, M (2013) Is patient choice democratizing Swedish primary care? Health Policy. 111(1), 95–98.
4.Coulter, A (2007) Engaging patients in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
5.Fredriksson, M, Tritter, JQ (2017) Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: Why the difference matters. Sociol Health Illn. 39(1), 95–111.
6.Boothe, K (2019) “Getting to the table”: Changing ideas about public and patient involvement in Canadian drug assessment. J Health Polit Policy Law. 44(4), 631–663.
7.Menon, D, Street, J, Stafinski, T, Bond, K (2017) The public: How can it contribute to an understanding of and decisions about the value of a new health technology (Workshop). CADTH: Ottawa.
9.Oortwijn, W, Broos, P, Vondeling, H, Banta, D, Todorova, L (2013) Mapping of Health Technology Assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 29(4), 424–434.
10.Nanavaty, M, Nyandege, A, Gala, S, Ramesh, V, Mwamburi, M (2016) Understanding Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies in major Asia-Pacific (APAC) markets: Systematic evaluation in 10 APAC countries. Value Health. 19(7), A493.
11.Holmes, B (2011) Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services: Research Paper no. 1 2011–12. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library, Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
12.Facey, K, Ploug Hansen, H, Single, A (2017) Patient involvement in health technology assessment. 1st ed.Singapore: Springer Nature.
13.Norris, P (2011) Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.NICE Citizens Council (2014) What are the societal values that need to be considered when making decisions about trade-offs between equity and efficiency. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
15.NICE Citizens Council (2008) Departing from the threshold. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
16.Wortley, S, Wale, JL (2017) Australia. In: Facey, KM, Ploug Hansen, H, Single, ANV, eds. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 237–242.
17.Shah, K (2018) NICE recommendation highlights role of social value judgements. OHE News.
18.Gauvin, F-P, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, JN (2011) Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 27(1), 43–49.
19.Menon, D, Stafinski, T (2009) Health Technology Assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 12(Suppl 2), S14–S19.
20.Hodgetts, K, Hiller, JE, Street, JM, et al. . (2014) Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: Outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups. BMC Health Serv Res. 14(1), 204.
21.Street, JM, Callaghan, P, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, Hiller, JE (2015) Citizens’ perspectives on disinvestment from publicly funded pathology tests: A deliberative forum. Value Health. 18(8), 1050–1056.
23.Couldry, N (2007) New media for global citizens? The future of the digital divide debate. Brown J World Affairs. 14(1), 249–261.
24.Rheingold, H (2007) Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York: Basic Books.
26.Mullen, C, Hughes, D, Vincent-Jones, P (2011) The democratic potential of public participation: Healthcare governance in England. Soc Legal Stud. 20(1), 21–38.
29.Abelson, J, Collins, PA (2009) Media hyping and the “Herceptin Access Story”: An analysis of Canadian and UK newspaper coverage. Healthc Policy Politiques de sante. 4(3), e113–e128.
30.Popay, J, Williams, G, Thomas, C, Gatrell, A (1998) Theorising inequalities in health: The place of lay knowledge. Sociol Health Illn. 20(5), 619–644.
31.Lindsay-Bellows, MC (2015) Patient involvement in the regulatory process and rare disease patient perceptions of treatment benefits and harms (Thesis). Edmonton: University of Alberta.
32.Abels, G (2007) Citizen involvement in public policy-making: Does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdiscip Inf Sci. 13(1), 103–116.
33.Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin, FP (2007) Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 82(1), 37–50.
34.Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, et al. (2016) Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 32(4), 256–264.
35.Anderson, W, Florin, D, Gillam, S, Mountford, L (2002) Every voice counts: Primary care organisations and public involvement. London: The Kings Fund.
36.Barham, L (2011) Public and patient involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient 4(1), 1–10.
37.Bombard, Y, Abelson, J, Simeonov, D, Gauvin, FP (2011) Eliciting ethical and social values in Health Technology Assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 73(1), 135–144.
38.Degeling, C, Carter, SM, Rychetnik, L (2015) Which public and why deliberate? A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 131, 114–121.
39.Degeling, C, Rychetnik, L, Street, J, Thomas, R, Carter, S (2017) Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens’/community juries. Soc Sci Med. 179, 166–171.
40.Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al. . (2011) Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to Health Technology Assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 27(1), 31–42.
41.Gauvin, F-P, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, J (2010) “It all depends”: Conceptualising public involvement in the context of health technologies assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 70, 1518–1526.
42.Gauvin, F, Abelson, J, Lavis, J (2015) Evidence brief: Strengthening public and patient engagement in health technology assessment. Ontario, Hamilton, Canada: McMaster Health Forum.
43.Guttman, N (2007) Bringing the mountain to the public: Dilemmas and contradictions in the procedures of public deliberation initiatives that aim to get “ordinary citizens” to deliberate policy issues. Commun Theory. 17(4), 411–438.
44.Jorgensen, TB, Bozeman, B (2007) Public values: An inventory. Adm Soc. 39, 354–381.
45.Lehoux, P, Daudelin, G, Abelson, J (2012) The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes. Soc Sci Med. 74(12), 1843–1850.
46.Lopes, E, Carter, D, Street, J (2015) Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 135(0), 84–91.
47.Lopes, E, Street, J, Carter, D, Merlin, T (2016) Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: Stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect. 19(2), 331–344.
48.Menon, D, Stafinski, T (2011) Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharm Out. 11(1), 75–89.
49.Merlin, T, Street, J, Holton, C, et al. (2011) Review of MBS items for specific ophthalmology services under the MBS Quality Framework. For consideration by Medical Services Advisory Committee. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
50.Nabatchi, T. Putting the public back in public values research: Designing public participation to identify and respond to public values. The Copenhagen Public Value Consortium Biennial Workshop 2010 – Heterogeneity and convergence in public values research; Leiden, The Netherlands June 10–12 2010.
51.Ploug-Hansen, H, Street, J (2017) Reflections on terms, goals and organisation. In: Facey, K, Ploug-Hansen, H, Single, A, eds. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Berlin: Springer, 31–42.
52.Stafinski, T, Menon, D (2017) Explicating social values for resource allocation decisions on new cancer technologies: We, the jury, find⋯. J Cancer Policy. 14, 5–10.
53.Street, J, Duszynski, K, Krawczyk, S, Braunack-Mayer, A (2014) The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 109 C, 1–9.
54.Street, J, Lopes, E (2017) Deliberative methods to involve patients in HTA. In: Facey, K, Ploug-Hansen, H, Single, A, eds. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Berlin: Springer, 165–174.
55.Whitty, JA (2013) An international survey of the public engagement practices of Health Technology Assessment organizations. Value Health. 16(1), 155–163.
56.Wortley, S, Street, J, Lipworth, W, Howard, K (2016) What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations? J Health Organ Manag. 30(6), 872–890.
57.Wortley, S, Tong, A, Howard, K (2017) Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making. Aust Health Rev. 41(1), 68–74.
58.Young, A, Menon, D, Street, J, Al-Hertani, W, Stafinski, T (2018) Engagement of Canadian patients with rare diseases and their families in the lifecycle of therapy: A qualitative study. Patient. 11(3), 353–359.