Health Technology Assessment: More Questions than Answers for Clinical Practice?

PAMELA DONAGHY; Maltia J Gilmartin; David  Melzer

doi:10.4324/9781351156608

Health Technology Assessment: More Questions than Answers for Clinical Practice?

PAMELA DONAGHY
, Maltia J Gilmartin
, David Melzer

Nursing & Midwifery

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

Abstract

Explores the robustness of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness, maturity and cost benefit of these interventions, products, services and packages of care used in daily practice.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Health Care Policy, Performance and Finance Strategic Issues in Health Care Management
Editors	Manouche Tavakoli
Publisher	Routledge, London
Chapter	1
Pages	3-17
Number of pages	15
ISBN (Electronic)	9781351156608
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351156608
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2004

Access to Document

10.4324/9781351156608

Cite this

@inbook{54e8c86d583a408fb47c9e183b33ef7b,

title = "Health Technology Assessment: More Questions than Answers for Clinical Practice?",

abstract = "Explores the robustness of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness, maturity and cost benefit of these interventions, products, services and packages of care used in daily practice.",

author = "PAMELA DONAGHY and Gilmartin, \{Maltia J\} and David Melzer",

year = "2004",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.4324/9781351156608",

language = "English",

pages = "3--17",

editor = "Manouche Tavakoli",

booktitle = "Health Care Policy, Performance and Finance Strategic Issues in Health Care Management",

publisher = "Routledge, London",

}

Health Technology Assessment: More Questions than Answers for Clinical Practice? / DONAGHY, PAMELA; Gilmartin, Maltia J; Melzer, David .
Health Care Policy, Performance and Finance Strategic Issues in Health Care Management. ed. / Manouche Tavakoli. Routledge, London, 2004. p. 3-17.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review