Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40722130›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

Finding common ground: collaboration to solve 'wicked' problems.

Linda Mundy, Guy Maddern

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Linda MundySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, https://ror.org/00892tw58University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7874-4232
Guy MaddernChair, HTAi Asia Policy Forum, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaboration is both a process and an outcome. Collaboration is based on the idea that interactions between participants with a common goal, working together as partnerships and sharing resources, can solve complex or "wicked" problems that are not possible to solve in isolation. Collaboration may be simple, occurring between individuals, or more complex interorganizational arrangements across sectors, with the life cycle and size of the collaboration determined by the issue at hand. HTA collaborations may involve a wide range of stakeholders, including HTA agencies at the national, regional, or global level, academia, government (including regulatory authorities), industry, clinicians, providers, and patient organizations. Regardless of the number or type of participants, collaborations need a shared understanding of the common goal, an agreement on aims, and a commitment to shared solutions.Industry and agency members of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) met in Seoul, South Korea, in November 2024 for open discussions on how to facilitate and improve the collaborative process between all stakeholders in the health system, including government, HTA agencies, industry, academia, clinicians, as well as patients. Over the three days, these discussions identified some of the risks and obstacles to collaboration in the region, how to develop and use collaboration better, as well as articulating the value and benefits of collaboration both in the region and globally.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansStakeholder ParticipationAsiacollaborationdecision makinghealth policyhealth technology assessmentmultistakeholder

Identifiers

PMID40722130
PMCPMC12350085

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.