1.Johnson, AP, Sikich, NJ, Evans, G, et al. Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:141-50.
2.Health Quality Ontario. Health technology assessments: Methods and process guide. Toronto, Ontario: Health Quality Ontario; 2017 p. 57
5.Alonso-Coello, P, Oxman, AD, Moberg, J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: A systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016;353:i2089.
6.Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, et al. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking: The EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.
7.Anderson, JL, Heidenreich, PA, Barnett, PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2304-2322.
8.Schnipper, LE, Davidson, NE, Wollins, DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2563-2577.
9.Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:256-264.
10.National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE). NICE process and methods guides. Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2008.
11.Stafinski, T, Menon, D, Marshall, D, et al. Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: Is it all about the health gain? Patient. 2011;4:207-225.
12.Whitty, JA, Littlejohns, P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2015;119:127-136.
13.Giacomini, M, Wagner, F, Krahn, M, et al. Social and ethical values for health technology assessment in Ontario. Health Quality Transformation 2012; Toronto, Ontario, 2012.
15.Miller, GA. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63:81-97.
16.Redelmeier, DA, Rozin, P, Kahneman, D. Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72-76.
17.Abelson, J, Forest, PG, Eyles, J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-251.
18.Kuhn, TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
19.Dogan, M. Paradigms in the Social Sciences. In: Smelser, NJ, Baltes, PB, eds. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Pergamon; 2001. p. 11023-11027.
20.Devlin, N, Sussex, J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: Methods and processes. London, UK: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
21.Claxton, K, Martin, S, Soares, M, et al. House of Commons, Parliamentary publication: Written Evidence (NICE 61). London, UK: Health Select Committee, 2012 October.
22.Keeney, RL. Utility functions for multiattributed consequences. Manage Sci. 1972;18(Pt-1):276-287.
23.Schoemaker, PJH. The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit. 1982;20:529-563.
24.von Neumann, J, Morgenstern, O, Kuhn, HW, et al. Theory of games and economic behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944.
25.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the processes of technology appraisal: Foreword. London, UK: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2014
26.Brouwer, WB, Culyer, AJ, van Exel, NJ, et al. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27:325-338.
27.Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Overview of the ICER value framework and proposals for an update for 2017–2018. Boston, MA: ICER; 2017. p. 1-24.