Publications
181 results found
Chalkidou K, Vega J, 2013, Sharing the British National Health Service around the world: a self-interested perspective, GLOBALIZATION AND HEALTH, Vol: 9
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 6
Mate KS, Sifrim ZK, Chalkidou K, et al., 2013, Improving health system quality in low- and middle-income countries that are expanding health coverage: a framework for insurance, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, Vol: 25, Pages: 497-504, ISSN: 1353-4505
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 13
Lopert R, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, 2013, Applying rapid 'de-facto' HTA in resource-limited settings: Experience from Romania, HEALTH POLICY, Vol: 112, Pages: 202-208, ISSN: 0168-8510
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 25
Sorenson C, Drummond M, Chalkidou K, 2012, Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, Vol: 30, Pages: 4267-4274, ISSN: 0732-183X
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 9
Chalkidou K, 2012, Evidence and values: paying for end-of-life drugs in the British NHS, HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW, Vol: 7, Pages: 393-409, ISSN: 1744-1331
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 21
Anderson G, Chalkidou K, Herring B, 2012, High US Health-Care Spending and the Importance of Provider Payment Rates., Forum Health Econ Policy, Vol: 15, Pages: 1-22
We compare health care spending in the USA to other industrialized countries and find that payment rates for hospitals, physicians, and drugs are generally much higher in the USA than they are in other industrialized countries while the quantity of services - as measured by the number of physician visits, hospital days and prescriptions filled per capita - is relatively similar across countries. We then explore policy initiatives designed to control payment rates and volume of services and review the success and failures of these initiatives. Within the USA, the private sector pays significantly higher rates for hospital and physician services and drugs than the public sector. Thus, if the USA is going to reduce health care spending, it may be necessary to begin by reducing payment rates in the private sector. Options to achieve this goal are presented.
Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Whicher D, et al., 2012, The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research, CLINICAL TRIALS, Vol: 9, Pages: 436-446, ISSN: 1740-7745
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 121
Glassman A, Chalkidou K, Giedion U, et al., 2012, Priority-setting institutions in health: recommendations from a center for global development working group., Glob Heart, Vol: 7, Pages: 13-34, ISSN: 2211-8160
The rationing problem is common to all health systems-the challenge of managing finite resources to address unlimited demand for services. In most low- and middle-income countries, rationing occurs as an ad hoc, haphazard series of nontransparent choices that reflect the competing interests of governments, donors, and other stakeholders. Yet in a growing number of countries, more explicit processes, with strengths and limitations, are under development that merit better support. Against this background, the purpose of the Center for Global Development Working Group, which is to examine how priorities are set currently, and to propose institutional arrangements that promote country ownership and improve health outcomes by more systematically managing this complex process of politics and economics, is discussed. Current global and national priority-setting practices in low- and middle-income countries, the potential for strengthened national institutions, and increased global support are reviewed. Recommendations for action are provided.
Chalkidou K, 2012, Setting up NICE International, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, Vol: 1, Pages: 121-124, ISSN: 2042-6305
Sorenson C, Chalkidou K, 2012, Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe, HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW, Vol: 7, Pages: 25-45, ISSN: 1744-1331
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 36
Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, et al., 2012, Social values and health policy: a new international research programme., J Health Organ Manag, Vol: 26, Pages: 285-292, ISSN: 1477-7266
PURPOSE: This editorial aims to outline the context of healthcare priority-setting, and summarise each of the other ten papers in this special edition. It introduces a new multidisciplinary research programme drawing on ethics, philosophy, health economics, political science and health technology assessment, out of which the papers in this edition have arisen. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Key normative concepts are introduced and policy and research context provided to frame subsequent papers in the edition. FINDINGS: Common challenges of health priority-setting are faced by many countries across the world, and a range of social value judgments is in play as resource allocation decisions are made. Although the challenges faced by different countries are in many ways similar, the way in which social values affect the processes and content of priority-setting decisions means that those challenges are resolved very differently in a variety of social, political, cultural and institutional settings, as subsequent papers in this edition demonstrate. How social values affect decision making in this way is the subject of a new multi-disciplinary research programme. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Technical analyses of health priority setting are commonplace, but approaching the issues from the perspective of social values and conducting comparative analyses across countries with very different cultural, social and institutional contexts provides the content for a new research agenda.
Chalkidou K, Rawlins SM, 2011, Pharmacogenetics and cost-effectiveness analysis: a two-way street, DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, Vol: 16, Pages: 873-877, ISSN: 1359-6446
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 7
Stevens A, Chalkidou K, Littlejohns P, 2011, The NHS: assessing new technologies, NICE and value for money, CLINICAL MEDICINE, Vol: 11, Pages: 247-250, ISSN: 1470-2118
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 4
Faden RR, Chalkidou K, 2011, Determining the Value of Drugs - The Evolving British Experience, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Vol: 364, Pages: 1289-1291, ISSN: 0028-4793
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 17
Chalkidou K, 2011, NICE - its reach is further than you think..., Regulatory Rapporteur, Vol: 8, Pages: 15-17, ISSN: 1742-8955
Chalkidou K, Lord J, Obeidat NA, et al., 2011, Piloting the development of a cost-effective evidence-informed clinical pathway: Managing hypertension in Jordanian primary care, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, Vol: 27, Pages: 151-158, ISSN: 0266-4623
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 5
Rawlins MD, Chalkidou K, 2011, The opportunity cost of cancer care: a statement from NICE, LANCET ONCOLOGY, Vol: 12, Pages: 931-932, ISSN: 1470-2045
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 13
Chalkidou K, Anderson GF, Faden R, 2011, Eliminating drug price differentials across government programmes in the USA, HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW, Vol: 6, Pages: 43-64, ISSN: 1744-1331
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 8
Cairns J, Chalkidou K, Panpiemras J, et al., 2010, EVALUATING THE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM IN THAILAND, Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC, Pages: A546-A546, ISSN: 1098-3015
Chalkidou K, 2010, From research to health care practice: how the UK uses data on comparative effectiveness. Interview by Bridget M. Kuehn., JAMA, Vol: 304, Pages: 1058-1059
Chalkidou K, Levine R, Dillon A, 2010, Helping poorer countries make locally informed health decisions, BMJ (Online), Vol: 341, Pages: 284-286
- Cite
- Citations: 37
Chalkidou K, Levine R, Dillon A, 2010, Helping poorer countries make locally informed health decisions, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, Vol: 341, ISSN: 1756-1833
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 25
Chalkidou K, 2010, The (Possible) Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research on Pharmaceutical Industry Decision Making, CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Vol: 87, Pages: 264-266, ISSN: 0009-9236
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 8
Littlejohns P, Chalkidou K, Wyatt J, et al., 2010, Assessing evidence and prioritizing clinical and public health guidance recommendations: The NICE way, Evidence-Based Public Health: Effectiveness and Efficiency, ISBN: 9780199563623
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organization responsible for providing national guidance on promoting good health, and preventing and treating ill health in England and Wales. It was established as a special health authority in 1999 to offer National Health Service (NHS) healthcare professionals guidance on how to provide their patients with the highest attainable standards of care and to reduce variation in the quality of care. In 2005, its remit was expanded to include health promotion and disease prevention. This chapter describes the deliberations that have led to the adoption, by NICE, of a set of generic principles, consistent across all its programmes, to govern the processes of assessing evidence and classifying recommendations. These principles reinforce the importance of basing decision making on good quality meta-analyses and reviews of studies designed to minimize systematic error. They also hold that, whatever the hierarchy or typology used to assess evidence, it should not be the sole factor driving the decision making process; and the evidence 'rank' should be considered separately from the strength of the recommendation(s) it supports.
Briggs A, Ritchie K, Fenwick E, et al., 2010, Access with Evidence Development in the UK Past Experience, Current Initiatives and Future Potential, PHARMACOECONOMICS, Vol: 28, Pages: 163-170, ISSN: 1170-7690
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 29
Chalkidou K, Walley T, 2010, Using Comparative Effectiveness Research to Inform Policy and Practice in the UK NHS Past, Present and Future, PHARMACOECONOMICS, Vol: 28, Pages: 799-811, ISSN: 1170-7690
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 12
Faden RR, Chalkidou K, Appleby J, et al., 2009, Expensive Cancer Drugs: A Comparison between the United States and the United Kingdom, MILBANK QUARTERLY, Vol: 87, Pages: 789-819, ISSN: 0887-378X
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 47
Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al., 2009, Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations., Lancet, Vol: 374, Pages: 1089-1096
Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.
Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al., 2009, Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation., Lancet, Vol: 374, Pages: 1097-1104
Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al., 2009, No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations., Lancet, Vol: 374, Pages: 1105-1112
Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.