Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 135-144

  Bombard, Yvonne ^a   Abelson, Julia ^b   Simeonov, Dorina ^b   Gauvin, Francois Pierre ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c INSTITUT NATIONAL DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE DU QUÉBEC   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Deliberative methods; Ethics; Health policy; Health technology assessment; Public engagement; Public involvement; Social values; Values

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH POLICY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

ADULT; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONTARIO; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

EID: 79959604235     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.017     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abelson J., Forest P.G., Eyles J., Smith P., Martin E., Gauvin F.P. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 2003, 57(2):239-251.
2. Abelson J., Giacomini M., Lehoux P., Gauvin F.P. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 2007, 82(1):37-50.
3. Abelson J., Miller F.A., Giacomini M. What does it mean to trust a health system? A qualitative study of Canadian health care values. Health Policy 2009, 91(1):63-70.
4. Autti-Rämö I., Mäkelä M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(1):1-8.
5. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003, 63(2):121-132.
6. Benatar D. Bioethics and health and human rights: a critical view. Journal of Medical Ethics 2006, 32(1):17-20.
7. Bombard, Y. (2009). Public Engagement Pilot Study on Point- of-Care International Normalized Ratio (INR) Monitoring Devices. In Medical Advisory Secretariat Field Evaluations (Ed.).
8. Bridges J.F., Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(1):30-35.
9. Burgess M.M. Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2004, 1(1):4-13.
10. Calnan M.W. The patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(1):24-34.
11. Chafe R., Merali F., Laupacis A., Levinson W., Martin D. Does the public think it is reasonable to wait for more evidence before funding innovative health technologies? The case of PET scanning in Ontario. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010, 26(2):192-197.
12. Childress J.F., Faden R.R., Gaare R.D., Gostin L.O., Kahn J., Bonnie R.J., et al. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 2002, 30(2):170-178.
13. Cleemput I., Leys M., Ramaekers D., Bonneux L. Balancing evidence and public opinion in health technology assessments: the case of leukoreduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2006, 22(4):403-407.
14. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(1):92-96.
15. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000, 321(7272):1300-1301.
16. De Vries R., Stanczyk A., Wall I.F., Uhlmann R., Damschroder L.J., Kim S.Y. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Social Science & Medicine 2010, 70(12):1896-1903.
17. DeJean D., Giacomini M., Schwartz L., Miller F.A. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: a descriptive review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(4):463-469.
18. Dowlen O. Sorted: Civic lotteries and the future of public participation 2008, MASS LBP, Toronto.
19. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions - First public draft (revised). Work package 4: Common Core HTA 2007, European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA).
20. Gauvin F.P., Abelson J., Giacomini M., Eyles J., Lavis J.N. It all depends: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Social Science & Medicine 2010, 70(10):1518-1526.
21. 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(1):15-24.
22. Goven J. Assessing genetic testing: who are the " lay experts" ?. Health Policy 2008, 85(1):1-18.
23. Heitman E. Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1998, 14(3):544-566.
24. Heitman E. Social and ethical aspects of in vitro fertilization. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1999, 15(1):22-35.
25. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2005, 21(3):312-318.
26. Hutcheon P.D. Value theory: towards conceptual clarification. British Journal of Sociology 1972, 23(2):172-187.
27. Ways to handle ethical issues - Final report 2005, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) Ethics Working Group, INAHTA, Stockholm.
28. Johnson A.P., Sikich N.J., Evans G., Evans W., Giacomini M., Glendining M., et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(2):141-150.
29. Karpowitz C.F., Mansbridge J. Disagreement and consensus: the need for dynamic updating in public deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation 2005, 1(2):348-364.
30. Kass N.E. An ethics framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health 2001, 91(11):1776-1782.
31. Kenny N., Giacomini M. Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal 2005, 13(4):247-260.
32. Lehoux P., Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23(1):9-16.
33. Morse J.M. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 1991, 40(2):120-123.
34. Mullen C. Representation or reason: consulting the public on the ethics of health policy. Health Care Anal 2008, 16(4):397-409.
35. Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance 2008, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
36. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment 1976, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
37. Pivik J., Rode E., Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy 2004, 69(2):253-268.
38. Potter B.K., Avard D., Entwistle V., Kennedy C., Chakraborty P., McGuire M., et al. Ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment for Prenatal/Preconceptional and newborn screening: a Workshop report. Public Health Genomics 2008, 12:4-10.
39. Public Engagement Subcommittee of the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. (2007). Final report of the public engagement subcommittee. In O. H. T. A. C. Reports (Ed.). Toronto.
40. Reuzel R. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis & Praxis 2004, 2:119-137.
41. Rokeach M. The nature of human values 1973, Free Press, New York.
42. Rokeach M. Understanding human values: Individual and societal 1979, Free Press, New York.
43. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 2000, 25(1):3-29.
44. Saarni S.I., Hofmann B., Lampe K., Luhmann D., Mäkelä M., Velasco-Garrido M., et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008, 86(8):617-623.
45. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Research in Nursing and Health 2000, 23(4):334-340.
46. Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health 2010, 33(1):77-84.
47. Scully J.L., Banks S., Shakespeare T.W. Chance, choice and control: lay debate on prenatal social sex selection. Social Science & Medicine 2006, 63(1):21-31.
48. Sorrenson C., Drummond M., Kristensen F.B., Busse R. How can the impact of health technology assessments be enhanced? Health systems and policy analysis 2008, World Health Organization.
49. Strauss A.C.J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
50. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2004, 20(1):71-76.
51. Upshur R.E. Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2002, 93(2):101-103.
52. van der Wilt G.J. Health technology assessment: trying to bring empirical and ethical inquiry together. Poisesis Praxis 2004, 2(2-3):195-206.
53. Velasco M., Perleth M., Drummond M., Gurtner F., Jorgensen T., Jovell A., et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2002, 18(2):361-422.