1. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin, FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:37–50.
2. Appel, LJ, Steinberg, EP, Powe, NR, et al. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth? Med Care. 1990;28:324–337.
3. Boote, J, Telford, R, Cooper, C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236.
4. Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30–35.
5. Chafe, R, Neville, D, Rathwell, T, Deber, R. A framework for involving the public in health care coverage and resource allocation decisions. Healthc Manage Forum. 2008;21:6–21.
6. Coulter, A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:92–96.
7. Davies, C, Wetherell, M, Barnett, E, Seymour-Smith, S. Opening the box. Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. In: The Open University. National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology, NHS Research and Development Program; 2005.
8. Entwistle, VA, Watt, IS, Davis, H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. The experience of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:47–70.
9. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–340.
10. Gauvin, FP, Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Eyles, J, Lavis, JN. “It all depends”: Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1518–1526.
11. Goven, J. Assessing genetic testing: Who are the “lay experts”? Health Policy. 2008;85:1–18.
12. Green, LW, George, MA, Daniel, M, et al. Study of participatory research in health promotion. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada; 1994.
13. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497–499.
14. Happ, BA. The effect of point of care technology on the quality of patient care. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993;183–187.
15. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment. Europe: Health Equality Europe; July 2008.
16. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–318.
17. Hutchinson, AB. A health technology assessment of HIV counseling and testing technologies: Evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the consumer perspective. Georgia: Georgia State University; 2003.
18. Johanson, R, Rigby, C, Newburn, M, Stewart, M, Jones, P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: A consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Health. 2002;122:50–54.
19. Jolly, K, Taylor, R, Lip, GY, et al. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: Cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–118.
20. Kinter, ET, Schmeding, A, Rudolph, I, dosReis, S, Bridges, JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: An application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:35–41.
21. Lassen, KO, Olsen, J, Grinderslev, E, Kruse, F, Bjerrum, M. Nutritional care of medical inpatients: A health technology assessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:7.
22. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.
23. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:9–16.
24. Leys, M. Health care policy: Qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;65:217–226.
25. Leys, M. Health Technology Assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317–329.
26. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282–293.
27. Mihaylov, S, Stark, C, McColl, E, et al. Stepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:iii–iv, ix–139.
28. Milewa, T. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy. 2008;85:356–362.
29. Moret-Hartman, M, Reuzel, R, Grin, J, van Der Wilt, GJ. Participatory workshops are not enough to prevent policy implementation failures: An example of a policy development process concerning the drug interferon-beta for multiple sclerosis. Health Care Anal. 2008;16:161–175.
30. Nixon, J, Nelson, EA, Cranny, G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces: A randomised evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii–iv, ix–x, 1–163.
31. Oliver, S, Armes, D, Gyte, G. Evaluation of public influence on the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Social Science Research Unit. Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.
32. Oliver, S, Clarke-Jones, L, Rees, R, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–148, III–IV.
33. Oliver, S, Milne, R, Bradburn, J, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research program: A pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18–28.
34. Oliver, SR, Rees, RW, Clarke-Jones, L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72–84.
35. Ong, BN. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:511–517.
36. Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253–268.
37. Ratcliffe, J, Buxton, M. Patients' preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology: An application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:340–351.
38. Ratcliffe, J, Longworth, L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:139–144.
39. Rowe, G, Frewer, LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251–290.
40. Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493–497.
41. Stolk, EA, Busschbach, JJ, Caffa, M, Meuleman, EJ, Rutten, FF. Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ. 2000;320:1165–1168.
42. Street, JM, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, Facey, K, Ashcroft, RE, Hiller, JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189–200.
43. TA-SWISS. Centre d'évaluation des choix technologiques. http://www.ta-swiss.ch (accessed month day, year).
44. Thomas, KS, Keogh-Brown, MR, Chalmers, JR, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii, ix-87.
45. van Kammen, J, Jansen, CW, Bonsel, GJ, et al. Technology assessment and knowledge brokering: The case of assisted reproduction in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:302–306.