| Title |
Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-11-329 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michèle Tony, Monika Wagner, Hanane Khoury, Donna Rindress, Tina Papastavros, Paul Oh, Mireille M Goetghebeur |
| Abstract |
Consistent healthcare decision making requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Professor | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 19% |
| Unknown | 46 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 20% |
| Engineering | 19 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 43 | 21% |
| Unknown | 54 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2012.
All research outputs
#20,153,989
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,048
of 7,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,101
of 239,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#77
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.