Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T18:37:17.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assisted Conception Techniques: On What Basis Do Health Technologies Become Routinely Available When They Have Been Assessed As Effective?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Nick Freemantle  and
Ian Watt
Nick Freemantle
Affiliation:
University of York
Ian Watt
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The possibility of restoring fertility among some infertile couples through assisted reproductive technology has led to questions about the terms under which such treatments should be made available. Although there is now evidence on their effectiveness, there is considerable variation in the availability of these treatments under the U.K. National Health Service.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 786 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Antman, E. M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, E., Chalmers, T. C.A comparison of results of meta-analysis of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268, 240–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Ashburner, I., & Cairncross, L.Membership of the ‘new style’ health authorities: Continuity or change? Public Administration, 1993, 71, 357–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Audit Commission. Their health, your business: The new role of the District Health Authority. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
4.Bowling, A., Jacobson, B., & Soutgate, L.Health service priorities: Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 851–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Carr-Hill, R.Background material for the workshop on QALYs: Assumptions of the QALY methodology. Social Science and Medicine, 1989, 29, 469–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Daniels, K., & Taylor, K.Formulating selection policies for assisted reproduction. Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 1473–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Dixon, I., Welch, H. G.Priority: Lessons from Oregon. Lancet, 1991, 337, 891–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Drummond, M., Torrance, G., & Mason, J.Cost effectiveness league tables: More harm than good? Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Effective Health Care. The management of subfertility. Bulletin No. 3. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1992.Google Scholar
10.Enthoven, A.Reflections on the management of the National Health Service: An A merican looks at the incentives for efficiency in health services management in the UK. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Foucault, M.The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Tavistock, 1973.Google Scholar
12.Freemantle, N., & Harrison, S.Interleukin 2: The public and professional face of rationing in the NHS. Critical Social Policy, Winter 1993–1994, 3, 94–117.Google Scholar
13.Freemantle, N., Watt, I., & Mason, J.Developments in the purchasing process in the NHS: Towards an explicit politics of rationing? Public Administration, 1993, 71, 535–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Glennester, H.Paying for welfare. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1992.Google Scholar
15.Harrison, S., & Wistow, G.The purchaser/provider split in English health care: towards explicit rationing? Policy & Politics, 1992, 20,123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Hull, M. G. R., Eddowes, H. A., Fahy, U., et al. Expectations of assisted conception for infertility. British Medical Journal, 1992, 304, 1465–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Klein, R.Dilemmas and decisions. Health Management Quarterly, 1992, 14, 2–5.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Light, D. W.Effectiveness and efficiency under competition: The Cochrane test. British Medical Journal, 1991, 303, 1253–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Lilford, R. J., & Watson, A. J.Has in-vitro fertilization made salpingostomy obsolete? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1990, 97, 557–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Mulrow, C. D.The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 106, 485–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.NHS Management Executive. Guidance on extra contractual referrals. Leeds: NHSME, 1992.Google Scholar
22.Office of Technology Assessment. Evaluation of the Oregon Medicaid proposal. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.Google Scholar
23.Pfeffer, N.The stork and the syringe: A political history of reproductive medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.Google Scholar
24.Pfeffer, N., & Pollock, A. M.Public opinion and the NHS: The unaccountable in pursuit of the uninformed. British Medical Journal, 1993, 307, 750–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Phillips, A., & Rakussen, J.The new our bodies ourselves. London: Penguin, 1989.Google Scholar
26.Rationing infertility treatments (editorial). Lancet, 1993, 342, 251–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Rawls, J.A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
28.Redmayne, S., & Klein, R.Rationing in practice: The case of in vitro fertilization. British Medical Journal, 1993, 306, 1521–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Secretaries of State for Health, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Working for patients. (Cmnd 555) London: HMSO, 1989.Google Scholar
30.Small, N.Aids and social policy. Critical Social Policy 1988, 7, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Stephenson, P. A., & Wagner, M. G.WHO recommendations for IVF: Do they fit with ‘health for all’? Lancet, 1993, 341, 1648–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Stocking, B.Promoting change in clinical care. Quality in Health Care, 1992, 1, 56–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Thompson, S. G., & Pocock, S. J.Can meta analysis be trusted? Lancet, 1991, 338, 1127–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Tonks, A.NHS infertility is ruled by chance. British Medical Journal, 1993, 306, 290.Google Scholar
35.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed