IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v60y2002i3p275-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women's knowledge of new regulations about publicly funded medications for osteoporosis

Author

Listed:
  • Werner, Perla
  • Vered, Iris

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner, Perla & Vered, Iris, 2002. "Women's knowledge of new regulations about publicly funded medications for osteoporosis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 275-284, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:60:y:2002:i:3:p:275-284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(01)00186-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guadagnoli, Edward & Ward, Patricia, 1998. "Patient participation in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 329-339, August.
    2. Skinner, C.S. & Strecher, V.J. & Hospers, H., 1994. "Physicians' recommendations for mammography: Do tailored messages make a difference?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(1), pages 43-49.
    3. Speedling, Edward J. & Rose, David N., 1985. "Building an effective doctor-patient relationship: From patient satisfaction to patient participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 115-120, January.
    4. Sloan,Frank A. (ed.), 1996. "Valuing Health Care," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576468, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Singh, Jagdip & Cuttler, Leona & Silvers, J. B., 2004. "Toward understanding consumers' role in medical decisions for emerging treatments: Issues, framework and hypotheses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1054-1065, September.
    2. Mahesh D. Pandey & Jatin S. Nathwani, 2003. "Canada Wide Standard for Particulate Matter and Ozone: Cost‐Benefit Analysis Using a Life Quality Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 55-67, February.
    3. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    5. Andronis, Lazaros & Maredza, Mandy & Petrou, Stavros, 2019. "Measuring, valuing and including forgone childhood education and leisure time costs in economic evaluation: Methods, challenges and the way forward," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Stolpe, Michael, 2003. "Ressourcen und Ergebnisse der globalen Gesundheitsökonomie: Einführung und Überblick," Kiel Working Papers 1177, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Jessica M. Yingst & Nicolle M. Krebs & Candace R. Bordner & Andrea L. Hobkirk & Sophia I. Allen & Jonathan Foulds, 2021. "Tobacco Use Changes and Perceived Health Risks among Current Tobacco Users during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-11, February.
    8. Ruediger Rackwitz, 2004. "Optimal and Acceptable Technical Facilities Involving Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 675-695, June.
    9. Bin Ding & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Dongxiao Gu & Fang Bian & Xuefeng Shao, 2019. "Effect of Patient Participation on Nurse and Patient Outcomes in Inpatient Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Susan Randles Moscato & Barbara Valanis & Christina M. Gullion & Christine Tanner & Susan E. Shapiro & Shigeko Izumi, 2007. "Predictors of Patient Satisfaction With Telephone Nursing Services," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 16(2), pages 119-137, May.
    11. Rackwitz, Rüdiger, 2006. "The effect of discounting, different mortality reduction schemes and predictive cohort life tables on risk acceptability criteria," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 469-484.
    12. Oana SABIE, 2019. "Social Assistance In Romania: Case Study For Bucharest District 5," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 11(1), pages 26-42, March.
    13. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    14. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2003. "Are Some Lives More Valuable?," Working Papers in Economics 96, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    16. repec:kap:iaecre:v:14:y:2008:i:3:p:329-335 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    18. Margaret A. Brunton, 2009. "The Role of Effective Communication to Enhance Participation in Screening Mammography: A New Zealand Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Johnstone, Megan-Jane & Kanitsaki, Olga, 2009. "Engaging patients as safety partners: Some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 1-7, April.
    20. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    21. Karolina Osowiecka & Radoslaw Sroda & Arian Saied & Marek Szwiec & Sarah Mangold & Dominika Osuch & Sergiusz Nawrocki & Monika Rucinska, 2020. "Patients’ Non-Medical and Organizational Needs during Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:60:y:2002:i:3:p:275-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.