Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Volumn 86, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 617-623

  Saarni, Samuli I ^a   Hofmann, Bjørn ^b   Lampe, Kristian ^a   Lühmann, Dagmar ^c   Mäkelä, Marjukka ^a   Velasco Garrido, Marcial ^d   Autti Rämö, Ilona ^a  

^a NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LÜBECK   (Germany)

^d TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPING WORLD; ETHICS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; MODEL; MORALITY; REVIEW;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CULTURE; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERNATIONALITY; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; MORALS; PILOT PROJECTS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 48749123092     PISSN: 00429686     EISSN: 15640604     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.051078     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment; 1976.
2. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:121-32. PMID:12543525 doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00059-3
3. Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis & Praxis 2004;2:221-46.
4. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law 2000;25:1083-120. PMID:11142053 doi:10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083
5. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:71-6. PMID:15176180 doi:10.1017/ S0266462304000819
6. Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gürtner F, Jørgensen T, Jovell A, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:361-422. PMID:12053427
7. Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on methodology. Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997;13:186-219. PMID:9194352
8. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, Clausen C, Gallo P, Grin J, et al. Ethics and HTA: some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis & Praxis 2004;2:247-56.
9. Hofmann B. The technological invention of disease - on disease, technology and values [Thesis]. Oslo: University of Oslo; 2002. Available from: http://www2.hig.no/ah/helseteknologi/Bjorn%20Hofmann/Artikler/Thesis.pdf [accessed on 11 June 2008].
10. Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HAMJ, de Vries Robb PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 2001;26:245-61. PMID:11445880 doi:10.1076/jmep.26.3.245.3015
11. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2000;21:103-15. PMID:10927971 doi:10.1023/A:1009934700930
12. Saarni SI, Gylling HA. Evidence based medicine guidelines: a solution to rationing or politics disguised as science? J Med Ethics 2004;30:171-5. PMID:15082812 doi:10.1136/jme.2003.003145
13. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis & Praxis 2004;2:175-93.
14. Hofmann B. On value-judgments and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis 2005;3:277-95. doi:10.1007/s10202-005-0073-1
15. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:9-16. PMID:17234011 doi:10.1017/S0266462307051513
16. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:1-10. PMID:15176172 doi:10.1017/S026646230400073X
17. Williams AH, Cookson RA. Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:1-9. PMID:16673674 doi:10.1017/S026646230605077X
18. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Screening for fetal abnormalities: from a health technology assessment report to a national statute. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:436-42. PMID:17937831
19. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:89-95. PMID:15736519
20. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten - eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. [Methods for the assessment of ethical aspects and moral concepts in society in health technology assessment reports - an international survey ]. Schriftenreihe HTA des DIMDI, vol. 9. Köln; 2003.
21. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis JL, Hivon M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:325-36. PMID:15446762 doi:10.1017/S026646230400114X
22. EUnetHTA fact sheet. Available from: http://www.eunethta.net/ upload/Fact_sheet/Sept19EUnetHTAFactsheet.pdf [accessed on 11 June 2008].
23. Lampe K, Mäkelä M. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. First public draft, revised 11 July 2007. Available from: http://www. eunethta.net/upload/WP4/ EUnetHTA_WP4_CoreModelforInterventions_FirstPublicDraftRevised-2007-07-11.pdf [accessed on 11 June 2008].
24. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:1-8. PMID:17234010
25. Giacomini M. One of these things is not like the others: the idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Milbank Q 2005; 83:193-223. PMID:15960769 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00344.x
26. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:312-8. PMID:16110710 doi:10.1017/S0266462305050415
27. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [Draft Guidance, Food and Drug Administration]. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006.
28. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
29. Daniels N. Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. J Philos 1979;76:256-82. doi:10.2307/2025881
30. Lampe K, Mäkelä M. Core HTA on drug eluting stents (DES) [First public draft, revised 11July 2007]. Available from: http://www.eunethta. net/upload/WP4/ EUnetHTA_WP4_CoreHTAonDES_FirstPublicDraftRevised-2007-07-11.pdf [accessed on 11 June 2008].
31. Ashcroft RE. Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Anal 2003;11:3-13. PMID:14510305 doi:10.1023/A:1025329811812
32. Ethics of Science and Technology Programme. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Available from: www.unesco. org/shs/est [accessed on 11 June 2008].
33. ten Have H. The activities of UNESCO in the area of ethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2006;16:333-51. PMID:17847600 doi:10.1353/ken.2006.0024