Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

  1    -,     1        |              the full report, are:~· Assessment of the status of health
  2    I,     2.Acr    |        Product~HTA~Health technology assessment~ICT~Information and Communications
  3    I,     2. 10.  3|              policies and trends and assessment of the need for additional
  4    I,     2. 10.  5|              10.5. Health technology assessment~ ~The potential of HTA for
  5    I,     2. 10.  5|        methods and data used for the assessment, the conclusions reached
  6    I,     2. 11    |       climate2008 indicator-based assessmentEEA Report No 4/2008. [
  7   II,     4.  1    |        Indicators is to allow a fair assessment of the EU situation in comparison
  8   II,     5.  2.  5|      prevention are artificial. Risk assessment, based on age, sex, smoking
  9   II,     5.  3.Acr|          Virus~HTA~Health Technology Assessment~IARC~International Agency
 10   II,     5.  3.  3|         representative basis for the assessment of results and quality of
 11   II,     5.  3.  7|      evaluation or Health Technology Assessment (HTA) regarding a new cancer
 12   II,     5.  4.  7|            through a “Privacy Impact Assessment” that has involved all participating
 13   II,     5.  5.Int|         which carried out a European assessment of mental health disability;
 14   II,     5.  5.  2|              through the qualitative assessment of evidence. Where information
 15   II,     5.  5.  3|     reflected in the quality of life assessment which differs significantly
 16   II,     5.  5.  3|           findings to date: Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE)
 17   II,     5.  5.  3|   application of the medication, the assessment methods and the duration
 18   II,     5.  5.  3|        research in the field of risk assessment, early detection, first-onset
 19   II,     5.  5.  3|             as a reference for trend assessment, provide the best basis
 20   II,     5.  5.  3|        unless based on an individual assessment (Employment Committee of
 21   II,     5.  5.  3|           include neuropsychological assessment, vocational training, interview
 22   II,     5.  5.  3|              in South-Australia – an assessment of compulsory notification.
 23   II,     5.  5.  3|              epilepsy in Iceland and assessment of the epilepsy syndrome
 24   II,     5.  5.  3|             related to improved case assessment over time. The MS risk in
 25   II,     5.  5.  3|            to 23%, deriving from the assessment through death certificates
 26   II,     5.  5.  3|              been observed. Although assessment biases might play a role
 27   II,     5.  5.  3|        cross-sectional nature of the assessment and the study specific purposes,
 28   II,     5.  5.  3|            GV, Hawkins SA (2001): An assessment of the spectrum of disability
 29   II,     5.  6.  3|     diagnosis as opposed to those of assessment, BMD should be measured
 30   II,     5.  6.  6|          Implications for Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health
 31   II,     5.  6.  6|          Bone 29:517-522~WHO (1994): Assessment of fracture risk and its
 32   II,     5.  9. FB|            allergology. High quality assessment criteria must be introduced,
 33   II,     5.  9.  4|       rhinitis should undergo asthma assessment and vice versa. A particular
 34   II,     5.  9.  5|              policies~ ~For a better assessment of the cost-benefit ratio
 35   II,     5.  9.  5|            allergology. High quality assessment criteria must be introduced,
 36   II,     5.  9.  5|             carry out the very first assessment of patients. The second
 37   II,     5.  9.  6|      perceptions of the patient. The assessment of HRQoL in asthmatic patients
 38   II,     5. 11.  7|         community and hospital-based assessment. Br J Dermatol 1994;131(
 39   II,     5. 11.  7|               eds. Health Care Needs Assessment, second series. Oxford:
 40   II,     5. 14.  2|                c. Periodontal Health Assessment~Proportion of population
 41   II,     5. 14.  3|            Severe Periodontal Health Assessment (Pocket >6mm) in selected
 42   II,     5. 14.  3|            Proper diagnosis and risk assessment are prerequisites for prevention.
 43   II,     5. 14.  3|      Knowledge of periodontal health assessment is an essential element
 44   II,     6.  4.  2|           scientific advice and risk assessment concerning messages received
 45   II,     6.  4.  4|           scientific advice and risk assessment, as well as work on laboratory
 46   II,     6.  4.  4|         issues, the verification and assessment of outbreaks and for collecting,
 47   II,     7.  1    |       impossible without proper risk assessment based on data. However,
 48   II,     7.  2.  5|       consistent time series for the assessment of national developments
 49   II,     7.  3.  4|              IDB).~ ~According to an assessment made by the police, the
 50   II,     7.  4    |          indicators (mostly based on assessment by EuroStat). The additional
 51   II,     9.  1.  1|     contrasts as a basis for quality assessment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
 52   II,     9.  1.  2|      Fortification: An International Assessment", Birth Defects Research (
 53   II,     9.  1.  2|             a systematic review. HTA Assessment 2004; Vol 8, no. 33.~Hansen
 54   II,     9.  1.  2|           drugs and comparative risk assessment. Elsevier 2001.~Vrijheid
 55   II,     9.  2.  5|        European Commission, 2007) An assessment of the available data measuring
 56   II,     9.  2.  6|         needs~Measurement and impact assessment of impairment and disability
 57   II,     9.  3.  1|            steroids, in practice the assessment of testosterone, serum concentration
 58   II,     9.  3.  1|      chemistry and specific hormonal assessment should be performed. Bone
 59   II,     9.  3.  1|            project~GIA~Gender Impact Assessment~GP~General Practitioner (
 60   II,     9.  3.  1|            Doctor)~HIA~Health impact Assessment~HIV~Human immunodeficiency
 61   II,     9.  3.  2|     contrasts as a basis for quality assessment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
 62   II,     9.  3.  3|          essential to the design and assessment of interventions to improve
 63   II,     9.  3.  3|           have focused mainly on the assessment of interventions to change
 64   II,     9.  3.  3|        Herlitz C, Ramstedt K (2005): Assessment of sexual behaviour, sexual
 65   II,     9.  4.  3|          Society, 2002).~ ~Dementia: Assessment and care packages have been
 66   II,     9.  4.  3|     suffering and inconvenience with assessment and management of urinary
 67   II,     9.  4.  5|    development and implementation of assessment instruments to improve the
 68   II,     9.  4.  5|       usefule for developing quality assessment tools.~ ~For what concerns
 69   II,     9.  4.  7|             Disease: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability
 70   II,     9.  5.  4|           and Gender Equality Impact Assessment before they are issued,
 71   II,     9.  5.  4|               Gender Equality Impact Assessment~ ~In 2001, a series of Gender
 72   II,     9.  5.  4|            of Gender Equality Impact Assessment (GIA) studies were ordered
 73  III,    10.  1    |        elements of exposure and risk assessment are estimations of the body
 74  III,    10.  1    |      development of a proactive risk assessment and management responses
 75  III,    10.  1.  3|       Milligan R, Thompson C (1995): Assessment of nutrition and physical activity
 76  III,    10.  1.  3|            kindergarten children: an assessment of evaluated projects in
 77  III,    10.  2.  1|            WHO)~ ~· Comparative Risk Assessment Study, carried out within
 78  III,    10.  2.  1|           disease, while risk factor assessment may measure the potential
 79  III,    10.  2.  1|       connotation, but ideallyrisk assessment’ should include a range
 80  III,    10.  2.  1|              this instrument for the assessment of dietary intake of the
 81  III,    10.  2.  1|             country-specific dietary assessment methods capable of measuring
 82  III,    10.  2.  1|   physical activity. A comprehensive assessment of the policy developments
 83  III,    10.  2.  1|              2007b).~ ~Health impact assessment of policies, with a special
 84  III,    10.  2.  1|              assessed. Health impact assessment can be very useful, since
 85  III,    10.  2.  1|          possible based on an impact assessment of the benefits, practicability
 86  III,    10.  2.  1|             on the conclusions of an assessment demonstrating its added
 87  III,    10.  2.  1|         expertise necessary for this assessment and to facilitate the preparation
 88  III,    10.  2.  1|     limitations depending on dietary assessment methods with respect to
 89  III,    10.  2.  1|       Consensus Paper. Health impact assessment: main concepts and suggested
 90  III,    10.  2.  1|             Iron deficiency anaemia. Assessment, prevention and control.
 91  III,    10.  2.  1|        nutrition/publications/en/ida_assessment_prevention_control.pdf~ ~
 92  III,    10.  3.  1|            sources~ ~ ~This EUGLOREH assessment on physical stressors is
 93  III,    10.  3.  1|                Joint Research Centre assessmentEnvironment and health” (
 94  III,    10.  3.  1|             Environment Agency (EEA) assessmentBelgrade report 2007 (Environment&
 95  III,    10.  3.  1|    Environment in Europe: a baseline assessment (in press May 2007) and
 96  III,    10.  3.  1|              very sparse. Therefore, assessment of acute health risks in
 97  III,    10.  3.  1|   frequencies. Proper evaluation and assessment of possible health effects
 98  III,    10.  3.  1|        Adequate data for proper risk assessment of static magnetic fields
 99  III,    10.  3.  1|              currently developing an assessment guide, addressing several
100  III,    10.  3.  1|            for further health impact assessment are available (Babisch,
101  III,    10.  3.  1|            Directive relating to the assessment and management of Environmental
102  III,    10.  3.  1|             values for dwellings and assessment of the efficiency of the
103  III,    10.  3.  1|               Boegli, H., 2006. Risk assessment of noise exposure - the
104  III,    10.  3.  1|             environment — The fourth assessment. European Environment Agency,
105  III,    10.  3.  1|             ISO/TS 15666 Acoustics – Assessment of noise annoyance by means
106  III,    10.  3.  2|             Environment – the Fourth assessment (chapter on chemicals),
107  III,    10.  3.  2|                Joint Research Centre assessmentEnvironment and health”.
108  III,    10.  3.  2|             and UNEPs Global Mercury Assessment since 2004 (UNEP, 2004).~
109  III,    10.  3.  2|            in order to give a better assessment than the present patchy
110  III,    10.  3.  2|             Environment – the Fourth assessment. [On-line publication available
111  III,    10.  3.  2|    Environment in Europe: a Baseline Assessment. WHO Europe, June 2007.
112  III,    10.  3.  4|     objective base for vulnerability assessment and priority setting. For
113  III,    10.  3.  4|    collection of these data by field assessment teams. Standard procedures
114  III,    10.  3.  4|             conducted a rapid health assessment in the flooded areas to
115  III,    10.  3.  4|       population. In particular, the assessment investigated the following
116  III,    10.  3.  4|             his livestock.~ ~The WHO assessment also reported a high level
117  III,    10.  4.  1|          Energy project for Scenario Assessment~HEIMTSA~Health and Environment
118  III,    10.  4.  1|          Toolbox~INTARESE~Integrated Assessment of Health Risks of Environmental~
119  III,    10.  4.  1|              Environment: the fourth assessment’ (chaptersAir Quality120  III,    10.  4.  1|              Environment: the fourth assessment: htt Environment and Health:
121  III,    10.  4.  1|            EC on ambient air quality assessment and management was complemented
122  III,    10.  4.  1|              calibration and quality assessment methods in order to arrive
123  III,    10.  4.  1|       Directive.~ ~The Health impact Assessment in the CAFE Programme was
124  III,    10.  4.  1|     integrated frameworks for health assessment, as under projects such
125  III,    10.  4.  1|             environment — The fourth assessment. European Environment Agency,
126  III,    10.  4.  1|          staff working paperImpact assessmentAnnex to the Communication
127  III,    10.  4.  1|         update 2005. Summary of risk assessment. Geneva, World Health Organization,
128  III,    10.  4.  1|    Environment in Europe: a Baseline Assessment. WHO Europe, June 2007.~ ~ ~
129  III,    10.  4.  2|   Encephalopathy~CRA~Cumulative Risk Assessment~EFSA~European Food Safety
130  III,    10.  4.  2|          been the separation of risk assessment and risk management, which
131  III,    10.  4.  2|              separation between risk assessment and risk management;~· limited
132  III,    10.  4.  2|    components of risk analysis (risk assessment, risk management and risk
133  III,    10.  4.  2|           light of results of a risk assessment and, if required, by selecting
134  III,    10.  4.  2|      addition to the scientific risk assessment. These include, for example,
135  III,    10.  4.  2|           just based on a scientific assessment of risk but also take into
136  III,    10.  4.  2|          enable a comprehensive risk assessment to be made. When faced with
137  III,    10.  4.  2|    management, which along with risk assessment and risk communication forms
138  III,    10.  4.  2|        European institutions.~ ~Risk assessment and risk communication:
139  III,    10.  4.  2|        Authority (EFSA)~ ~Scientific assessment of risk must be undertaken
140  III,    10.  4.  2|   responsibility for scientific risk assessment and risk communication in
141  III,    10.  4.  2|           areas of activity (a) risk assessment and (b) risk communication.
142  III,    10.  4.  2|        harmonised approaches of risk assessment methodologies across the
143  III,    10.  4.  2|              to ensure European risk assessment is supported by the most
144  III,    10.  4.  2|      external sources.~ ~EFSA’s risk assessment operations are organized
145  III,    10.  4.  2|      addition, EFSA’s Pesticide Risk Assessment Peer Review Unit is responsible
146  III,    10.  4.  2|            required for the exposure assessment. There is thus a need for
147  III,    10.  4.  2|       Veterinary Public Health.~ ~An assessment of the safety and quality
148  III,    10.  4.  2|             cases, inhibits a proper assessment of the relevance of different
149  III,    10.  4.  2|            indicatorPCBs; EU: risk~assessment by EFSA in~preparation~ ~
150  III,    10.  4.  2|           and, after a comprehensive assessment of the active substances,
151  III,    10.  4.  2|      Therefore, only cumulative risk assessment of compound sharing the
152  III,    10.  4.  2|       prioritised for discussion and assessment. A set of criteria to identify
153  III,    10.  4.  2|            carry out cumulative risk assessment. All have advantages and
154  III,    10.  4.  2|            dialogue between the risk assessment community (toxicologists,
155  III,    10.  4.  2|              asked to perform a risk assessment to support a strategy for
156  III,    10.  4.  2|           approaches to improve risk assessment in specific areas, for which
157  III,    10.  4.  2|            approaches for the safety assessment of micro-organisms used
158  III,    10.  4.  2|        should ensure a better use of assessment resources by focusing on
159  III,    10.  4.  2|              make an adequate safety assessment. QPS is suggested as an
160  III,    10.  4.  2|          tool within EFSA for safety assessment and priority setting (EFSA,
161  III,    10.  4.  2|       setting (EFSA, 2005).~ ~Safety assessment of compounds that are both
162  III,    10.  4.  2|          2004).~ ~Principles of risk assessment of food producing animals~ ~
163  III,    10.  4.  2|            initial stage of the risk assessment. This information is used
164  III,    10.  4.  2|              throughout all the risk assessment process. This affects decisions
165  III,    10.  4.  2|          usefulness for the specific assessment;~· The rationale for using
166  III,    10.  4.  2|             an integral part of risk assessment. While highly desirable,
167  III,    10.  4.  2|       available at the time the risk assessment model was developed, may
168  III,    10.  4.  2|       products (PPR)~ ~Consumer risk assessment of pesticides residues~ ~
169  III,    10.  4.  2|     importance of acute dietary risk assessment of pesticide residues on
170  III,    10.  4.  2|                 EFSA to provide risk assessment for all active substances
171  III,    10.  4.  2|             proposedArticle 24;~· assessment of existing MRLsArticle
172  III,    10.  4.  2|        opinion as indicated above;~· assessment of MRLs applications for
173  III,    10.  4.  2|            Annex VII; dietary intake assessment and toxicological reference
174  III,    10.  4.  2|             peer review for the risk assessment on plant protection products
175  III,    10.  4.  2|     ecotoxicology~ ~and provide risk assessment for:~· those who apply the
176  III,    10.  4.  2|             an initial report: draft assessment report (DAR)~· second: EFSA (
177  III,    10.  4.  2|              peer review of the risk assessment by EFSA. This cornerstone
178  III,    10.  4.  2|            technical quality in risk assessment in order to ensure that
179  III,    10.  4.  2|              to ensure that the risk assessment is maintained as a transparent
180  III,    10.  4.  2|            guidance document on risk assessment developed by the PPR panel~·
181  III,    10.  4.  2|         dealing with the accelerated assessment procedure introduced by
182  III,    10.  4.  2|        questions related to the risk assessment of plant protection products
183  III,    10.  4.  2|             regarding pesticide risk assessment or on specific active substances
184  III,    10.  4.  2|         Documents on pesticides risk assessment: promoting new and harmonized
185  III,    10.  4.  2|            GD on Pesticides Exposure Assessment for Workers, Operators,
186  III,    10.  4.  2|            Opinion on GD on the risk assessment for birds and mammals (second
187  III,    10.  4.  2|              aspects concerning risk assessment of pesticides with regard
188  III,    10.  4.  2|              consistency in the risk assessment for groundwater contamination;
189  III,    10.  4.  2|           factors in ecological risk assessment; and FOCUS guidance on the
190  III,    10.  4.  2|       pesticides in air and exposure assessment.~ ~European consultations
191  III,    10.  4.  2|            Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals (SANCO
192  III,    10.  4.  2|    scientific issues related to risk assessment on food and feed. In November
193  III,    10.  4.  2|          discuss the Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) of Pesticides to Human
194  III,    10.  4.  2|              and cumulative exposure assessment. Cooperation between the
195  III,    10.  4.  2|         general framework for safety assessment was advocated, in which
196  III,    10.  4.  2|              a more extensive safety assessment using the methodology further
197  III,    10.  4.  2|         desirable to make the safety assessment, available scientific papers
198  III,    10.  4.  2|          foods must undergo a safety assessment before being placed on the
199  III,    10.  4.  2|        considered by a national food assessment body as “substantially equivalent200  III,    10.  4.  2|            many developments in risk assessment, EFSA has also undertaken
201  III,    10.  4.  2|     Risk-benefit analysis~ ~The risk assessment of chemicals in food is
202  III,    10.  4.  2|           third step is the exposure assessment. Here, the intake of the
203  III,    10.  4.  2|    characterization and the exposure assessment and evaluates the qualitative
204  III,    10.  4.  2|         consisting of a risk-benefit assessment part, a risk-benefit management
205  III,    10.  4.  2|            Consequently, the benefit assessment part of the risk-benefit
206  III,    10.  4.  2|             part of the risk-benefit assessment should include benefit identification,
207  III,    10.  4.  2|      characterisation (dose-response assessment), exposure assessment, and (
208  III,    10.  4.  2|  dose-response assessment), exposure assessment, and (probability for) benefit
209  III,    10.  4.  2|              the health risk-benefit assessment is related to acute, short-term
210  III,    10.  4.  2|             assumptions made for the assessment and analysis as well as
211  III,    10.  4.  2|  susceptibility to a known hazard~An assessment of an emerging risk is characterized
212  III,    10.  4.  2|             or episodic observation. Assessment of emerging risks is distinct
213  III,    10.  4.  2|           risks is distinct from the assessment of risks under emergency (
214  III,    10.  4.  2|       communications with other risk assessment bodies and risk managers
215  III,    10.  4.  2|              technology and the risk assessment of novel nanoparticles requires
216  III,    10.  4.  2|       Colloquium on “Cumulative risk assessment of pesticides to human health:
217  III,    10.  4.  2|            to healthy diets. EU risk assessment past, present and future.
218  III,    10.  4.  2|        support of ILSI European Risk Assessment of compounds that are both
219  III,    10.  4.  2|              and cord blood samples: Assessment of PFOS exposure in a susceptible
220  III,    10.  4.  3|    environment in Europe: a baseline assessment, and the underlying factsheets (
221  III,    10.  4.  3|            collected from the fourth assessment report, the “Belgrade Report” (
222  III,    10.  4.  3|           Joint Monitoring Programme assessment, there are important disparities
223  III,    10.  4.  3|              on a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach
224  III,    10.  4.  3|              Environment. The fourth assessment. (“Belgrade Report2007).
225  III,    10.  4.  3|           EEA) (2008): Bathing water assessment (draft). EEA - IMS Indicators -
226  III,    10.  4.  3|            water quality (CSI 022) - Assessment DRAFT created Mar 2008.
227  III,    10.  4.  3|    environment in Europe: A baseline assessment. WHO-Europe, Copenhagen.
228  III,    10.  4.  5|            collected from the fourth assessment report - the “Belgrade Report” (
229  III,    10.  4.  5|              Environment. The fourth assessment. (“Belgrade Report2007).
230  III,    10.  4.  5|           EEA) (2008): Bathing water assessment (draft). EEA - IMS Indicators -
231  III,    10.  4.  5|            water quality (CSI 022) - Assessment DRAFT created Mar 2008.
232  III,    10.  4.  5|        Communities~HIA~Health impact assessment~JRC~Joint Research Centre
233  III,    10.  4.  5|              Strategic Environmental Assessment~SEE~South East and Eastern
234  III,    10.  4.  5|      Environmental Agency (EEA) 2007 assessment of the core set indicator “
235  III,    10.  4.  5|              Environment: the fourth assessment” (EEA, 2007 b), chapters
236  III,    10.  4.  5|            and on estimates, the EEA assessment reports that:~ ~· annual
237  III,    10.  4.  5|        measures and the various risk assessment and management approaches
238  III,    10.  4.  5|             animals). Therefore, the assessment of the impacts of contamination
239  III,    10.  4.  5|   groundwater compared to soil.~ ~An assessment of the impacts of the various
240  III,    10.  4.  5|            In 2003, the WHO exposure assessment expert group suggested that
241  III,    10.  4.  5|    approaches, such as health impact assessment (HIA), which has proven
242  III,    10.  4.  5|              strategic environmental assessment (SEA). In view of the various
243  III,    10.  4.  5|             Agency (2007a): EEA 2007 assessment of the core set indicator “
244  III,    10.  4.  5|             Environment – the Fourth assessment. Available at: htt ~ ~Lesley
245  III,    10.  5.  1|      integrate them into one general assessment. Therefore, generalized
246  III,    10.  5.  1|            be representative for the assessment of the human settlement
247  III,    10.  5.  1|           Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2005): A healthier home –
248  III,    10.  5.  1|    environment in Europe: A baseline assessment. WHO Regional Office for
249  III,    10.  5.  3|        health and safety, including: assessment and prevention of risks,
250   IV,    11.  1.  3|          many systems of performance assessment, some noted above, have
251   IV,    11.  1.  3|             As effective performance assessment relies on a more pragmatic
252   IV,    11.  1.  5|            provided care. In quality assessment, two types of outcomes are
253   IV,    11.  1.  5|       between organizational quality assessment models and clinical quality
254   IV,    11.  1.  5|          models and clinical quality assessment schemes (Øvretveit, 2001).
255   IV,    11.  1.  5|            to guide clinical quality assessment although, because of difficulties
256   IV,    11.  1.  5|           relate to clinical quality assessment schemes such as clinical
257   IV,    11.  4    |              11.4. Health Technology Assessment~ ~The development of research-based
258   IV,    11.  4    |       systems: the Health Technology Assessment.~ ~The role of Health Technology
259   IV,    11.  4    |            role of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is to inform the development
260   IV,    11.  4    |           health systems. Technology assessment in healthcare is defined
261   IV,    11.  4    | International Journal for Technology Assessment in Health Care.~ ~Irrespective
262   IV,    11.  4    |        Figure 11.9. Conduction of an assessment~ ~ ~Source: Busse et al (
263   IV,    11.  4    |        Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA project aims at
264   IV,    11.  4    |       distinction in England between assessment (a scientific process and
265   IV,    11.  4    |           preliminary decisions. The assessment does not make any recommendations.~ ~
266   IV,    11.  4    |              that “Health technology assessment is a good example, where
267   IV,    11.  5.  3|         factors included in the risk assessment in the different countries,
268   IV,    11.  5.  3|     regulated).~ ~Figure 11.15. Risk assessment criteria in organ transplant~ ~
269   IV,    11.  5.  3|        transplant~ ~Most of the risk assessment is governed by technical
270   IV,    11.  5.  3|       different criteria in the risk assessment are covered in technical
271   IV,    11.  6.  2|              11.6.2. Description and assessment of health financing systems~ ~
272   IV,    11.  6.  2|             formal health technology assessment, with the potential to ensure
273   IV,    11.  6.  4|           2004).~ ~Health technology assessment (HTA) has assumed an increasing
274   IV,    11.  6.  4|             typically in the form of assessment reports, to support various
275   IV,    11.  6.  4|            on the intent and type of assessment required (Zentner et al,
276   IV,    11.  6.  5|                2004): "International assessment of the quality of clinical
277   IV,    11.  6.  5|  International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16(4): 969-
278   IV,    11.  6.  5|            1989): "Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review." Academy of
279   IV,    11.  6.  5|  International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16(4): 1050-
280   IV,    11.  6.  5|  International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16: 210-27.~ ~
281   IV,    11.  6.  5|             systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement
282   IV,    11.  6.  5|  International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 21(1): 10-
283   IV,    11.  6.  5|             20.~ ~Navarro D (2000): "Assessment of the World Health Report
284   IV,    11.  6.  5|          opportunities in the era of assessment and accountability. Measuring
285   IV,    11.  6.  5|  International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16(4): 1061-
286   IV,    11.  6.  5|                GMS Health Technology Assessment 1(Doc09).~ ~Kane, R. L. (
287   IV,    12.  4    |   rare diseases;~· health technology assessment, with a network supported
288   IV,    12.  5    |           scientific advice and risk assessment by promoting the early identification
289   IV,    12.  5    |          Michel (2004).~In the first assessment to be a Structural Indicator,
290   IV,    12.  7    |           than health, calls for the assessment of the health impact of
291   IV,    12.  7    |                Health systems impact assessment~An ad hoc Working Group
292   IV,    12.  7    |         group completed: a web-based assessment tool incorporating a manual
293   IV,    12.  7    |            the “health system impact assessment cube”; a policy assessment
294   IV,    12.  7    |           assessment cube”; a policy assessment of the Community policy
295   IV,    12.  7    |            be to pilot the web-based assessment tool, preferably linked
296   IV,    12.  7    |       Commission’s Integrated Impact Assessment guidance and materials.
297   IV,    12. 10    |      insurance statute).~Nutritional assessment is part of national public
298   IV,    12. 10    |           Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung,
299   IV,    12. 10    |           Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung,
300   IV,    12. 10    |         conducting health technology assessment. ~ ~Acute Hospitals~The
301   IV,    12. 10    |           SAFE aims towards a better assessment of the epidemiological risk
302   IV,    12. 10    |              particular in charge of assessment of achievement of the objectives~
303   IV,    12. 10    |          2007. So it’s beginning the assessment of the objectives of the
304   IV,    12. 10    |            budget survey~Nutritional assessment in population and dietary
305   IV,    12. 10    |           national level~Nutritional assessment of population (schoolchildren,
306   IV,    13.  5    |   rare diseases;~· health technology assessment, with a network supported
307   IV,    13.  7.  1|        cooperation and exchange.~The assessment made could be complemented
308   IV,    13.  7.  3|          environment and health risk assessment. Overall, the reimbursement
309   IV,    13.  7.  4|              process of risk-benefit assessment of innovative technologies