Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
Do you wish to request the book?
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING
2015
Overview
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the role of community preference information from discrete choice studies of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in health technology assessment (HTA) reports and subsequent policy decisions.
Methods: We undertook a systematic review of discrete choice studies of CRC screening. Included studies were reviewed to assess the policy context of the research. For those studies that cited a recent or pending review of CRC screening, further searches were undertaken to determine the extent to which community preference information was incorporated into the HTA decision-making process.
Results: Eight discrete choice studies that evaluated preferences for CRC screening were identified. Four of these studies referred to a national or local review of CRC screening in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. Our review of subsequently released health policy documents showed that while consideration was given to community views on CRC, policy was not informed by discrete choice evidence.
Conclusions: Preferences and values of patients are increasingly being considered “evidence” to be incorporated into HTA reports. Discrete choice methodology is a rigorous quantitative method for eliciting preferences and while as a methodology it is growing in profile, it would appear that the results of such research are not being systematically translated or integrated into HTA reports. A formalized approach is needed to incorporate preference literature into the HTA decision-making process.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Subject
