Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Tools
Share this article

Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and articles from CERA and BioMed Central.

Open Access Correction

The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions

Sitaporn Youngkong1,2*, Noor Tromp1 and Dereck Chitama1,3

Author Affiliations

1 Nijmegen International Center for Health Systems Research and Education (NICHE), Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

3 School of Public Health and Social Sciences-Muhimbili, University of Health and Social Sciences, Tanzania

For all author emails, please log on.

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, 9:16 doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-16


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/9/1/16


Received:17 October 2011
Accepted:26 October 2011
Published:26 October 2011

© 2011 Youngkong et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Correction

After the publication of this article [1], we became aware that two last sentences in the paragraph relied on original ideas following personal communication with a researcher, and should not have been presented here. Consequently, the reference number 9 which was cited for the removed issue should be taken from the article. The correct paragraph is provided below:

The explicit weighing of criteria analyzed from DCE may improve the consistency of priority setting across contexts and over time, but does not solve the more fundamental problem that views of stakeholders, and therefore their expressed weights, may diverge. This is acknowledged by the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' (A4R) framework [2,3] which is based on the believe that any consensus on priority setting weights and subsequent results may be difficult to achieve because of these distinct perspectives of stakeholders. Instead of attempting to resolve the problem of diverse stakeholders' views, the A4R framework proposes to concentrate on a fair priority setting process. On this basis, when conditions of reasonableness, publicity, appeal and enforcement are satisfied, it would lead to decisions that are considered fair and acceptable to stakeholders. In our view, exploring how stakeholders' divergent perspectives on the weighting of criteria can be met fairly, is an object for further research.

We regret any inconvenience that these corrections might have caused.

References

  1. Youngkong S, Tromp N, Chitama D: The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions.

    Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, 9:8. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  2. Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness: Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles.

    BMJ 2000, 321:1300-1301. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  3. Daniels N: Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008. OpenURL