The need for public engagement in choosing health priorities.
作者信息
Chafe Roger, Levinson Wendy, Hébert Paul C
出版信息
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):165. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101517. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The need for public engagement in choosing health priorities.公众参与选择卫生工作重点的必要性。
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):165. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101517. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
2
Public engagement in choosing health priorities.公众参与健康优先事项的选择。
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):227. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2014.
3
Brazil and Peru pool views of their people to set health agenda.巴西和秘鲁汇聚民众观点以制定卫生议程。
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Jul;83(7):485-6.
4
Deciding whether to engage the public on health care issues.决定是否就医疗保健问题与公众互动。
Healthc Manage Forum. 2008 Autumn;21(3):24-8. doi: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60271-2.
5
Public engagement in setting priorities in health care.公众参与医疗保健领域的优先事项设定。
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 1;179(1):15-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071656.
6
Public engagement in choosing health priorities.公众参与健康优先事项的选择。
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):226-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2010.
7
Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.解决癌症药物可负担性问题：利用审议式公众参与为卫生政策提供信息。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Feb 7;17(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0411-8.
8
Constituency priorities in AIDS vaccine research: one perspective.艾滋病疫苗研究中的选区优先事项：一种观点。
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1992 Aug;8(8):1431-2. doi: 10.1089/aid.1992.8.1431.
9
Doctors have patients, governors have citizens.医生有病人，州长有公民。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 Sep-Oct;19(5):173-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.19.5.173.
10
Voters and health care in the 1998 election.
JAMA. 1999 Jul 14;282(2):189-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.2.189.
引用本文的文献
1
Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.公众对药物投资减少的看法：加拿大癌症药物协商式公众参与活动的结果。
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jul 22;19(1):977. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7303-2.
2
Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the 'how' and 'what' of patient engagement in health research.加拿大的患者参与：对健康研究中患者参与的“方式”和“内容”的范围综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 7;16(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4.
3
First Nations health care and the Canadian covenant.第一民族医疗保健与加拿大契约。
Med Health Care Philos. 2014 Feb;17(1):61-9. doi: 10.1007/s11019-013-9490-4.
4
Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: a qualitative public deliberation study.公民对个性化医学的看法：一项定性公众讨论研究。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Nov;21(11):1197-201. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.300. Epub 2013 Jan 23.
5
Fostering partnerships in survivorship care: report of the 2011 Canadian genitourinary cancers survivorship conference.促进生存护理中的伙伴关系：2011 年加拿大泌尿生殖系统癌症生存会议报告。
J Cancer Surviv. 2012 Sep;6(3):296-304. doi: 10.1007/s11764-012-0220-3. Epub 2012 Apr 17.
6
Sustainability is not the issue: let's focus on quality.可持续性不是问题：让我们专注于质量。
CMAJ. 2011 May 17;183(8):885-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.110540. Epub 2011 Apr 6.
7
Public engagement in choosing health priorities.公众参与健康优先事项的选择。
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):227. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2014.
8
Public engagement in choosing health priorities.公众参与健康优先事项的选择。
CMAJ. 2011 Feb 8;183(2):226-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111-2010.
本文引用的文献
1
Peer review or barbecue? The choice is clear.同行评审还是烧烤？选择很明显。
CMAJ. 2007 May 8;176(10):1389, 1391. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070506.
2
New reproductive technology board belies expert selection process.新的生殖技术委员会掩盖了专家选拔过程。
CMAJ. 2007 Feb 27;176(5):611-2. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070132. Epub 2007 Feb 7.
Zotero 插件