Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 463-469

  Dejean, Deirdre ^a,c   Giacomini, Mita ^a,d   Schwartz, Lisa ^a   Miller, Fiona A ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c Health Research Methodology Programme   (Canada)

^d Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Ethics; Health technology assessment

Indexed keywords

CONTENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECTS; ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS; ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS; ETHICAL ISSUES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

QUALITY CONTROL; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY;

HEALTH;

BENEFICENCE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; DRUG ELUTING STENT; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY; GASTRIC BANDING; JUSTICE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NERVE STIMULATION; PATIENT AUTONOMY; REVIEW; BIOETHICS; ETHICS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOETHICS; CANADA; HUMANS; MORALS; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 74049131272     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309990390     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Ashcroft R. Health technology assessment. In: The concise encyclopedia of the ethics of new technologies. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001:235-244.
2. Banta H, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC. A personal perspective on its first 10 years. International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:430-453.
3. Beauchamp TL. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
4. Benatar D. Bioethics and health and human rights: A critical view. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:17-20.
5. Boothroyd L, Lehoux P. Home-based chemotherapy for cancer: Issues for patients, caregivers and the health care system. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et desModes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2004.
6. Brophy J, Erickson L. An economic analysis of drug eluting coronary stents: A Quebec perspective. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2004.
7. Brown A, Coyle D, Chen S, Cumming D, Mensinkai S. Transdermal hormone replacement therapy patches for women with postmenopausal symptoms: Economic analysis of short-term use. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2006.
8. Busse R, Velasco M, Perleth M, 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.
9. Callahan D. Principlism and communitarianism. J Med Ethics. 2003;29:287-291.
10. Dahlgren H. Ethics: Not a mirron parameter for HTA or how could we better integrate ethics into HTA? In: The 6th Symposium on Health Technology Assessment: Cologne; 2005.
11. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening the box: Evaluating the citizens council of NICE. Bristol: The Open University; 2005.
12. Demeter S, Hailey D. Non-penetrating glaucoma surgery using AquaFlow(TM) collagen implants. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment/Office Canadien de Coordination de l'Evaluation des Technologies de la Sante (CCOHTA); 2001.
13. Draborg E, Andersen CK.What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Atatistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:19-25.
14. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:492-498.
15. Framarin A. First-trimester prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other aneuploidies. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2003.
16. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poeisis Praxis. 2004;2:175-193.
17. Ho C, Banerjee S, Mensinkai S. Molecular diagnosis for hereditary cancer predisposing syndromes: Genetic testing and clinical impact. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2003.
18. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312-318.
19. Hofmann B. Why ethics should be a part of health technology assessment. I J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423-429.
20. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment EthicsWorking Group. INAHTA'sWorking Group on Handling Ethical Issues: Final Report; 2005.
21. Jacobs P, Hailey D, MacLean N. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation methods. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2000.
22. Kahn T, Ninomiya H. Changing vocabularies: A guide to help bioethics searchers find relevant literature in National Library of Medicine databases using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexing vocabulary. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003;13:275-311.
23. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. New York: Routledge; 2006.
24. Lehoux P, Law S. Health care technology at home: Issues in organization and delivery in Quebec. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2004.
25. 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;20:325-336.
26. 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.
27. McGahan L, Kakuma R, Ho C, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 predictive genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancers: A systematic review of clinical evidence. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2006.
28. Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896-902. (Pubitemid 30727648)
29. Noorani HZ, McGahan L. Criteria for selection of adult recipients for heart, cadaveric kidney and liver transplantation. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment/Office Canadien de Coordination de l'Evaluation des Technologies de la Sante (CCOHTA); 1999.
30. Palylyk-Colwell E. CYP450 genotyping for determining drug metabolizer status. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2006.
31. Pineau G, Moqadem K, St-Hilaire C, et al. Telehealth: Clinical guidelines and technological standards for telerehabilitation. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et desModes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2006.
32. Pineau G, Moqadem K, St-Hilaire C. Telehealth: Clinical guidelines and technological standards for telepsychiatry. Montreal: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et desModes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2006.
33. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nursing Health. 2000;23:334-340.
34. Scott A, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical R. Living donor liver transplantation in children.Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2004.
35. Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani H, Mensinkai S, Dooley K. Newborn screening for medium chain acyl?CoA cehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry: Clinical and cost-effectiveness Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2006.
36. Yunkap Kwankam MM, Hailey D, Jacobs P. Cord blood transplantation. HTA 13. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 1998.