Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T23:58:36.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lay Perspective in Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Bie Nio Ong
Bie Nio Ong
Affiliation:
Keele University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health technology assessment has predominantly been carried out by scientific and health policy experts, but the involvement of users is becoming increasingly important. At present, robust examples of the integration of lay knowledge in health technology assessment are limited, but examination of examples in other fields of health policy decision making can provide important pointers for the development of valid methodologies.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 511 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Banta, H. D., Schersten, T., & Jonsson, E. Implications of minimally invasive therapy. In Banta, H. D. (ed.), Minimally invasive therapy in five European countries. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993, 167–77.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Banta, H. D., & Vondeling, H.Strategies for successful evaluation and policy-making toward health care technology on the move: The case of medical lasers. Social Science and Medicine, 1994, 38, 1663–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bowling, A., Jacobson, B., & Southgate, L.Exploration in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 851–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Buxton, M. Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: The evaluation of heart transplants in the U.K. In Drummond, M. (ed.), Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
5.Cohen, J.Appropriate technology in primary health care: Evolution and meaning of WHO'S concept. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 103–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Drummond, M.Test drive. Health Service Journal, 1992 (10 22), 26–27.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Eddy, D.What's going on in Oregon? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 266, 417–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Green, A., & Barker, C.Priority setting and economic appraisal: Whose priorities —the community or the economist? Social Science and Medicine, 1988, 26, 919–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Helman, C.Culture, health and illness. Bristol: Wright, 1985.Google Scholar
10.Hopkins, A., Gabbay, J., & Neuberger, J.Role of users of health care in achieving a quality service. Quality in Health Care, 1994, 3, 203–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Hopton, J., & Dlugolecka, M.Patients' perceptions of need for primary health care services: Useful for priority setting? British Medical Journal, 1995, 310, 1237–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Irving, M. Health technology assessment. In Deighan, M. & Hitch, S. (eds.), Clinical effectiveness from guidelines to cost-effective practice. Brentwood: Earlybrave Publications, 1995, 7–10.Google Scholar
13.Jennett, B.Assessment of clinical technologies: Importance of provision and use. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 435–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Kleinman, A.Patients and healers in the context of culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kuhn, T.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
16.McKcown, K., Whitelaw, S., Hambleton, D., & Green, F. Setting priorities: Science, art or politics. In M., Malek (ed.), Setting priorities in health care. London: John Wiley and Sons, 1994, 19–29.Google Scholar
17.Mullen, P.Priority setting in health care: Techniques and pitfalls. Paper presented at the EURO-ORAHS conference on Managing health care under resource constraints, Maastricht, 07 23–28, 1995.Google Scholar
18.Oakley, A.Women confined. Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1980.Google Scholar
19.Richardson, A., & Sykes, W.Eliciting public values in health care: A report on health panels set up by Somerset Health Commission. London, 07 1995.Google Scholar
20.Stocking, B.Promoting change in clinical care. Quality in Health Care, 1992, 1, 56–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Stocking, B. The future starts here. Health Service Journal, 1992 (10 1), 26–28.Google Scholar
22.Vang, J.Technology assessment and primary health care in Europe: Issues and problems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 111–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Williams, G., & Popay, J. Lay knowledge and the privilege of experience. In Gabe, J., Kelleher, D., & Williams, G. (eds.), Challenging medicine. London: Routledge, 19XX, 118–39.Google Scholar
24.World Health Organization/UNICEF. Primary health care: the Alma Ata conference. Geneva: WHO, 1978.Google Scholar