Wailoo A, Tsuchiya A, McCabe C. Weighting must wait. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(12):983–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schwappach DLB. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):210–22.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(3):201–8.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Culyer A. Social values in health and social care. The King's Fund: Commision on the Future of Health and Social Care in England; 2014.

Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(2):267–76.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 1997;6(2):117–32.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Culyer A. Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities and the quality of life. In: Baldwin S, editor. The quality of life: perspectives and policies. London: Routledge; 1990.

Ghijben P, Gu Y, Lancsar E, Zavarsek S. Revealed and stated preferences of decision makers for priority setting in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(3):323–40.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norwegian Medicines Agency. Guidelines for the submission of documentation for single technology assessment (STA) of pharmaceuticals. 2021. https://legemiddelverket.no/english/public-funding-and-pricing/documentation-for-sta/guidelines-for-the-submission-of-documentation-for-single-technology-assessment-sta-of-pharmaceuticals. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Health technology evaluations: the manual. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2022.

Dutch National Health Care Institute. Cost-effectiveness in practice [in Dutch]. 2015. https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/rapport/2015/06/26/kosteneffectiviteit-in-de-praktijk. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.

Dutch National Healthcare Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland [ZIN]). Disease burden in practice [in Dutch]. 2018. https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/rapport/2018/05/07/ziektelast-in-de-praktijk. Accessed 5 Sep 2023.

Skedgel C, Henderson N, Towse A, Mott D, Green C. Considering severity in health technology assessment: can we do better? Value Health. 2022;25(8):1399–403.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhang K, Garau M. International cost-effectiveness thresholds and modifiers for HTA decision making. Office of Health Economics. 2020. https://www.ohe.org/publications/international-cost-effectiveness-thresholds-and-modifiers-hta-decision-making. Accessed 24 Oct 2023.

Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1256–71.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE’s approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(3):346–9.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 5.0). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health; 2016.

Petrou S, Kandala N-B, Robinson A, Baker R. A person trade-off study to estimate age-related weights for health gains in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):893–907.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ungar WJ, Prosser LA, Burnett HF. Values and evidence colliding: health technology assessment in child health. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Res. 2013;13(4):417–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Devlin NJ, Pan T, Sculpher M, Jit M, Stolk E, Rowen D, et al. Using age-specific values for pediatric HRQoL in cost-effectiveness analysis: is there a problem to be solved? If so, how? Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(10):1165–74.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Grey matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Ottawa: CADTH; 2019.

Schlosser RW, Wendt O, Bhavnani S, Nail-Chiwetalu B. Use of information-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evidence-based practice: the application of traditional and comprehensive pearl growing: a review. Int J Language Commun Disord. 2006;41(5):567–82.

Article  Google Scholar 

Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Res Economists. 2017;4(2):319–405.

Google Scholar 

Werntoft E, Hallberg IR, Elmstahl S, Edberg A-K. Older people’s views of prioritization in health care. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005;17(5):402–11.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Prosser LA, Bridges CB, Uyeki TM, Rego VH, Ray GT, Meltzer MI, et al. Values for preventing influenza-related morbidity and vaccine adverse events in children. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:18.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Prosser LA, Payne K, Rusinak D, Shi P, Uyeki T, Messonnier M. Valuing health across the lifespan: health state preferences for seasonal influenza illnesses in patients of different ages. Value Health. 2011;14(1):135–43.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Howard K, Jan S, Rose JM, Wong G, Irving M, Tong A, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: a discrete choice study. Transplantation. 2015;99(3):560–7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Blomquist GC, Dickie M, O’Conor RM. Willingness to pay for improving fatality risks and asthma symptoms: values for children and adults of all ages. Res Energy Econ. 2011;33(2):410–25.

Article  Google Scholar 

Luyten J, Kessels R, Atkins KE, Jit M, van Hoek AJ. Quantifying the public’s view on social value judgments in vaccine decision-making: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2019;228:181–93.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Prosser LA, Payne K, Rusinak D, Shi P, Messonnier M. Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(4):305–15.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aidem JM. Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study. Health Policy. 2017;121(6):683–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Denburg AE, Giacomini M, Ungar W, Abelson J. Ethical and social values for paediatric health technology assessment and drug policy. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2022;11(3):374–82.

Google Scholar 

Denburg AE, Giacomini M, Ungar WJ, Abelson J. ‘The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough’: a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):45.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gauvreau CL, Wight L, Subasri M, Palmer A, Hayeems R, Croker A, et al. Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: eliciting citizens’ values to inform public funding decisions. Health Expect. 2023;26(2):715–27.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy. 1999;49(1–2):63–74.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kuder LB, Roeder PW. Attitudes toward age-based health care rationing: a qualitative assessment. J Aging Health. 1995;7(2):301–27.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lasseter G, Al-Janabi H, Trotter CL, Carroll FE, Christensen H. The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):0197374.

Article  Google Scholar 

Powell PA, Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, Tsuchiya A, Brazier JE. Valuing child and adolescent health: a qualitative study on different perspectives and priorities taken by the adult general public. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):222.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Schweda M, Wohlke S, Inthorn J. “Not the years in themselves count”: the role of age for European citizens’ moral attitudes towards resource allocation in modern biomedicine. J Public Health. 2015;23(3):117–26.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fortes P, Pereira P. Patient prioritization in medical emergencies: an ethical analysis. Revista Assoc Medica Brasil (1992). 2012;58(3):335–40.

Article  Google Scholar 

Irving MJ, Tong A, Jan S, Wong G, Cass A, Allen RD, et al. Community preferences for the allocation of deceased donor organs for transplantation: a focus group study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(8):2187–93.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Werntoft E, Hallberg IR, Edberg A-K. Older people’s reasoning about age-related prioritization in health care. Nurs Ethics. 2007;14(3):399–412.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ratcliffe J, Lancsar E, Walker R, Gu Y. Understanding what matters: an exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care. Health Policy. 2017;121(6):653–62.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rowen D, Rivero-Arias O, Devlin N, Ratcliffe J. Review of valuation methods of preference-based measures of health for economic evaluation in child and adolescent populations: where are we now and where are we going? Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(4):325–40.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, Kuhse H, Singer P. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal. 1996;4(2):103–11.