WrightKG: Measurement of costs and benefits in health and health services. Epidemiology and Community Health1979; 33:19–31.
2.
Costs and benefits of occupational health nursing. Washington, DC, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 1980.
3.
The costs and effectiveness of nurse practitioners. Washington, DC, Office of Technology Assessment, #052-003-00844-1, 1982.
4.
SeigalBJensenDCoffeeE: Cost-effectiveness of family nurse practitioners versus MD-staffed rural practice, in BlissACohenE (eds): The new health professionals. Germantown, MD, Aspen Systems Corp, 1977.
5.
FlynnBC: The effectiveness of nurse clinicians' service delivery. Am J Public Health June 1974; 64:604–611.
6.
KaneR: Differences in the outcomes of acute episodes of care provided by various types of family practitioners. J Fam Pract January 1978; 6:133–138.
7.
SpectorR: Medical care by nurses in an internal medicine clinic: Analysis of quality and its costs. JAMA June 23, 1975; 232:1234–1237.
8.
SpitzerWO: The Burlington randomized trial of the nurse practitioner. New Engl J Med January 31, 1974; 290:251–256.
9.
KakuK: Comparison of health appraisals by nurses and physicians. Public Health Rep1970; 85:1042–1046.
10.
CollenMF: Dollar cost per positive test for automated multiphasic screening. N Engl J Med August 27, 1970; 9:283.
11.
HerronCA: Screening in diabetes mellitus: Report of the Atlanta Workshop. Diabetes Care1979; 2:357.
12.
MahoneyLJBirdLCookeGM: Annual clinical examination is the best available screening test for breast cancer. N Engl J Med1979; 301:315–318.
13.
SchweitzerOLuceR: A cost-effective approach to cervical cancer detection. Washington, DC, National Center for Health Services Research, # (PHS) 79–3237, 1979.
14.
FramePSCarlsonSJ: A critical review of periodic health screening using specific screening criteria. J Fam Prac1975; 2:29–36, 123–129, 189–194, 283–288.
15.
Canadian Task Force Report: The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J November 3, 1979; 121:1193.
16.
KristeinMM: Economic issues is prevention. Prev Med1977; 6:252–264.
17.
CoxS: Cost-effectiveness of primary and secondary prevention. Health Soc Work May 1980; 5:56–60.
18.
DworeRBKreuterMW: Update: Reinforcing the case for health promotion. Family and Community Health1980; 2:103–119.
19.
MushkinSJDunlopDW (eds): Health: What is it worth? Measures of health benefits. New York, Pergamon Press, 1979.
20.
RogersPJEatonEKBruhnJG: Is health promotion cost-effective?Prev Med1981; 10:324–339.
21.
GreenLW: How to evaluate health promotion. Hospitals1979; 53:106–108.
22.
MendeloffJ: An evaluation of the OSHA program's effect on workplace injury rates. Washington, DC, ASPER, US Department of Labor, 1976.
23.
Di PietroA: Data needs for the evaluation of OSHA's net impact. Washington, DC, Office of Evaluation, US Depart of Labor, 1975.
24.
LowrenceWW: Of acceptable risk. Los Altos, CA, William Kaufmann, 1976.
25.
SmithRS: The occupational safety and health act. Washington, DC, Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976.
26.
PrescottPA: Cost-effectiveness: Tool or trap. Nurs Outlook1979; 27:724.