Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 9-16

  Lehoux, Pascale ^a   Williams Jones, Bryn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ethics; Health technology assessment; HTA; Policy making; Social issues; Values

Indexed keywords

DATABASE SYSTEMS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; POLICY MAKING; SOCIAL ISSUES; VALUES;

SOCIAL ASPECTS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INSTRUMENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

QUEBEC; SOCIAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247549792     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307051513     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-251.
2. Anderson Garcia S. Sociocultural and legal implications of creating and sustaining life through biomedical technology. J Legal Med. 1996;17:469-525.
3. Banta D. Perry S. A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:430-453.
4. Burgess MM. Public consultation in ethics: An experiment in representative ethics. J Bioeth Inq. 2003;1:4-13.
5. Cleret de Langavant G. Method and complexity in bioethics: The example of community genetics. Community Genet. 2000;3:141-143.
6. De Vries R. How can we help? From "sociology in" to "sociology of" bioethics. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;32:279-92.
7. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: National Health Service (NHS), Health Development Agency; 2004.
8. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methods for integrating ethical aspects and social values in short HTA-reports. An international inventory. German Agency of Health Technology Assessment at German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA) (DIMDI); 2003:9.
9. Gallo P. Integrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:103-117.
10. Giacomini M, Hurley J, Gold I, Smith P, Abelson J. The policy analysis of "values talk": Lessons from Canadian health reform. Health Policy. 2004;67:15-24.
11. Giacomini M, Miller F, Browman G. Confronting the "gray zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:301-316.
12. Grin J. Health technology assessment between our health care system and our health. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:157-174.
13. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:175-194.
14. Haimes E. What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics. 2002;16:89-113.
15. Hasman A. Eliciting reasons: Empirical methods in priority setting. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:41-58.
16. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312-318.
17. Hoffmaster B. Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:1421-1431.
18. Heitman E. Ethical issues in technology assessment: Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:544-566.
19. Heitman E. Social and ethical aspects of in vitro fertilization. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:22-35.
20. Johri M, Lehoux P. The great escape? Health technology assessment as a means of cost control. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:179-193.
21. Kenen RG. The at-risk health status and technology: A diagnostic invitation and the "gift" of knowing. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42:1545-1553.
22. Kmet L, Lee RC, Cook LS, et al. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical research (AHFMR). Systematic review of the social, ethical, and legal dimensions of genetic cancer risk assessment. AHFMR: Edmonton; 2004.
23. Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE, et al. Examining the role of health services research in public policy-making. Milbank Q. 2002;80:125-154.
24. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.
25. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083-1120.
26. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis J-L, Hivon M. Redefining HTA in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325-336.
27. Leroux T, Hirtle M, Fortin L-N. An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. J Consum Policy. 1998;21:445.
28. Moldrup C. Medical technology assessment of the ethical, social, and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. A research proposal for an Internet citizen jury. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:728-732.
29. Molewijk AC, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J. Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: A plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Health Care Anal. 2004;11:69-92.
30. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, et al. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:iii-ix, 1-274.
31. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Citizens Council Report on age. NICE: London; Undated.
32. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social value judgements. Principles for the development of NICE guidance. NICE: London; 2005.
33. Oortwijn W, Reuzel R, Decker M. Introduction. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:97-102.
34. Reiter-Theil S. Does empirical research make bioethics more relevant? The "embedded researcher" as a methodological approach. Med Health Care Philos. 2004;7:17-29.
35. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:247-256.
36. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493-497.
37. van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment: Trying to bring empirical and ethical inquiry together. Poiesis Praxis. 2004;2:195-206.
38. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:71-76.
39. Webster A. Health technology assessment: A sociological commentary on reflexive innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:61-66.
40. Williams T, May C, Mair F, Mort M, Gask L. Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care. Health Policy. 2003;64:39-54.
41. Williams-Jones B, Burgess MM. Social contract theory and just decision making: Lessons from genetic testing for BRCA mutations. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2004;14:115-142.
42. Williams-Jones B, Graham JE. Actor-network theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genet Soc. 2003;22:271-296.