Login | Register
Assessing the Payback from AHFMR-funded research

- SECTION 6:

Reference List

  1. Alberta Health Research Industry Task Force. Alberta Health
    Research Industry Task Force, editor. Health Research: A
    Strategic Opportunity for Albertans. 1996.

  2. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. Crossing
    the Gap, Triennial Report 1996. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
    AHFMR. 1996.

  3. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. From
    Innovation to Commercialization. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
    AHFMR. 1997

  4. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. Telephone
    nurse triage services. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. AHFMR.
    1998. TN14.

  5. Alberta Science and Research Authority. Sustaining the
    Alberta Advantage. http://www.gov.ab.ca/sra/publicdocs/sustain/
    1998.
    Ref Type: Internet Communication

  6. Buxton M, Elliott R, Hanney S et al. Health Economics
    Research Group, editor. Assessing Payback from Department of
    Health Research and Development: Preliminary Report.
    Uxbridge, Middlesex UK Brunel University. 1994; No.19.
    Volume 2: Eight Case Studies.

  7. Buxton M and Hanney S. Health Economics Research Group,
    editor. Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research
    and Development: Preliminary Report. Uxbridge, Middlesex UK
    Brunel University. 1994; No.19. Volume 1: The Main Report.

  8. Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services
    research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research
    Policy 1996a;1(1):35-43.

  9. Buxton M and Hanney S. Health Economics Research Group,
    editor. Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research
    and Development: Second Report. Uxbridge, Middlesex UK
    Brunel University. 1997b; No.24. Volume 1: The Main Report.

  10. Buxton M and Hanney S. Health Economics Research Group,
    editor. Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research
    and Development: Second Report. Uxbridge, Middlesex UK
    Brunel University. 1997c; No.24. Volume 2: Ten Further Case
    Studies.

  11. Buxton M, Hanney S. Evaluating the NHS research and
    development program: will the program give value for money?
    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1998;91(suppl.
    35):2-6.

  12. Chrisman JJ. University of Calgary, editor. Economic benefits
    provided to the Province of Alberta by the Faculty of the
    University of Calgary. Calgary, AB. University of Calgary. 1994.
    Report prepared for Vice-President (Research).

  13. Comroe JH, Dripps RD. Scientific basis for the support of
    biomedical science. Science 1976;192(4235):105-11.

  14. Comroe JH Jr., Dripps RD. Ben Franklin and open heart
    surgery. Circulation Research 1974;35:661-9.

  15. Davies L, Drummond M, and Papanikoloau P. Informing
    research funding decisions: Payback analysis. Paper presented
    to the UK Health Economists' Study Group. July, 1998.

  16. Eddy D. Selecting technologies for assessment. International
    Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
    1989;5:485-501.

  17. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
    FASEB News, FASEB adopts policy on the Government
    Performance and Results Act. FASEB . 9-7-1998.
    Ref Type: Internet Communication

  18. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. Science
    1955;122:108-11.

  19. Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? British
    Medical Journal 1996;313:
    411-3.

  20. Harper G, Townsend J, Buxton MJ. Preliminary economic
    evaluation of health technologies - a discussion. [In Press]
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.
    1998.

  21. Institute of Medicine. Institute of Medicine, editor. Setting
    priorities for health technology assessment: a model process.
    Washington, D.C. National Academic Press. 1992.

  22. Jabob R. Evaluation de l'influence et de l'impact des rapports
    du Conseil d'Evaluation des Technolgies de la Sante (CETS).
    Montreal, Quebec. 1994.

  23. Jacob R. Evaluation de l'influence et de l'impact des rapports
    du Conseil d'Evaluation des Technologies de la Sante. Montreal,
    Quebec. 1995.

  24. Jacob R, Battista RN. Assessing technology assessment.
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1993;9(4):564-72.

  25. Jacob R, McGregor M. Assessing the impact of health
    technology assessment. International Journal of Technology
    Assessment in Health Care 1997;13(1):68-80.

  26. Klein R. Research, policy, and the National Health Service.
    Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1990;15(3):501-23.

  27. Lilford R, Royston G. Decision analysis in the selection,
    design and application of clinical and health services research.
    Journal of Health Services Research Policy 1998;3(3):159-66.

  28. Lomas J. Finding audiences, changing beliefs: the structure
    of research use in Canadian health policy. Journal of Health
    Politics, Policy and Law 1997;15(3):525-42.

  29. Narin F. National Science Foundation, editor. TRACES -
    Technology in retrospect and critical events in science.
    Washington, D.C. USA. National Science Foundation. 1968; ITT
    Research institute report prepared for the US National Science
    Foundation under contract NSF C-535.

  30. PRISM. The Knowledge Cycle. 1997; Q4 Ed. London, England: Wellcome Trust.

  31. Raiten DJ and Berman SM. Bethesda Life Sciences
    Research Office, editor. Can the impact of basic biomedical
    research be measured? A case study approach. Bethesda, MD.
    1993.

  32. Schneider WL and Hailey D. AHFMR, editor. Stereotactic
    radiosurgery: options for Albertans. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
    Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. 1998; HTA9.

  33. Selby Smith C. Research in VET Decision-making: Chapter
    2. Australia. National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
    1998. Volume 1.

  34. Sherwin, C. and Isenson, R. U.S.Director of Defense,
    R.&.E., editor. First interim report on Project Hindsight
    (Summary). Washington, D.C. Director of Defense, Research &
    Engineering. 1966.

  35. Toll, K. Kerry Toll & Associates, editor. Making a Difference.
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Kerry Toll & Associates. 1998. Case
    Studies on the Socio-Economic Benefits of Research Funded by
    Alberta Health.

  36. Townsend J, Buxton MJ. Cost-effectiveness scenario
    analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy.
    Health Policy 1997;39:181-94.

  37. Unrau Y and McDonald J. University of Calgary, editor. The
    frequency, nature, and impact of faculty influence on policy
    external to the University of Calgary. Calgary, Alberta. University
    of Calgary. 1995. Prepared for Vice-President (Research).

  38. van der Meulen B and Rip A. Enschede: University of
    Twente, editor. Assessing societal quality of research in
    environment sciences. Enschede: University of Twente. 1995.
    Indicatoren en indicaties voor de beoordeling vans
    maatschappelijke kwaliteit van onderzoek.

  39. Weiss C. Knowledge creep and decision accretion.
    Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation 1980;1:381-404.

  40. Wellcome Trust, P. Wellcome Trust, editor. Mapping the
    Landscape. London, England. Wellcome Trust. 1998. National
    biomedical research outputs 1988-1995.


Next >>ContentsSummary<< Previous

-------------------------------------