1.EuroStat. Population structure and ageing 2017 [Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing.
2.EuroStat. A look at the lives of the elderly in the EU today 2017 [Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/elderly/index.html.
3.Worldbank. Health expenditure, total (% of GDP): The World Bank; 2017 [Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS.
4.Bodenheimer T. High and rising health care costs. Part 2: technologic innovation. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(11):932–7.
5.WHO. The world health report: 2006: working together for health. 2006.
6.Hall S, Petkova H, Tsouros A, Costantini M, Higginson IJ. Palliative care for older people: better practices. World Health Organization (WHO); 2011.
7.voor de Volksgezondheid R. Sensible and sustainable care, Dutch communique from the health department. RvZ.
8.Dolan P, Lee H, King D, Metcalfe R. Valuing health directly. BMJ. 2009;339.
9.NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013 4 april 2013.
10.ZiNL. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015 17 november 2015. Contract No.: 2015026324.
11.Hodiamont F, Jünger S, Leidl R, Maier BO, Schildmann E, Bausewein C. Understanding complexity–the palliative care situation as a complex adaptive system. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):157.
12.Wichmann AB, Adang EM, Stalmeier PF, Kristanti S, Van den Block L, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, et al. The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: Mapping the debate through an integrative review. Palliat Med. 2017:0269216316689652.
13.McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2016;38(3):655–62.
14.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.
15.Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.
16.Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ–5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value in health. 2013;16(1):202–10.
17.Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ. 2011;343:d4163.
18.Sen A, Nussbaum M. The Quality of Life Clarendon Press; 1993.
19.Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N. Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999.
20.Smith JE. TIME, TIMES, AND THE’RIGHT TIME’;” CHRONOS” AND” KAIROS”. The Monist. 1969;53(1):1–13.
21.Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ–5D–5L better than EQ–5D–3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–97.
22.Dzingina MD, McCrone P, Higginson IJ. Does the EQ–5D capture the concerns measured by the Palliative care Outcome Scale? Mapping the Palliative care Outcome Scale onto the EQ–5D using statistical methods. Palliat Med. 2017:0269216317705608.
23.Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D. Mapping the cancer‐specific EORTC QLQ‐C30 to the preference‐based EQ‐5D, SF‐6D, and 15D instruments. Value in Health. 2009;12(8):1151–7.
24.McKenzie L, van der Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C–30 onto the EQ–5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health. 2009;12(1):167–71.
25.Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos‐Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
26.Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological science. 1993;4(6):401–5.
27.Normand C. Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38(1):27–31.
28.Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7.
29.Chen TC, Wanniarachige D, Murphy S, Lockhart K, O’Mahony J. Surveying the Cost Effectiveness of the 20 Procedures with the Largest Public Health Services Waiting Lists in Ireland: Implications for Ireland’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold. Value in Health. 2018.
30.Regulations on medical research involving human subjects, (1998).