Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 230-237

  Burls, Amanda ^a,b   Caron, Lorraine ^c   Cleret De Langavant, Ghislaine ^d,e   Dondorp, Wybo ^f   Harstall, Christa ^g   Pathak Sen, Ela ^e,k   Hofmann, Bjørn ^h,i,j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

^c Institut National d'Excellence en Sante et en Services Sociaux INESSS   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^e Commissaire À la Santé et Au Bien être ^*  (United Kingdom)

^f MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

ⁱ Norwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services   (Norway)

^j NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^k Culvert Cottage   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Bioethics; Ethical framework; Ethics; Health technology assessment; Research design

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; ETHICAL FRAMEWORK; ETHICS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH DESIGN;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH; HEALTH; RATING;

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; E-MAIL; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; WORKSHOP;

EDUCATION; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80155123434     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000250     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Beauchamp TL, Childress TF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009.
2. Blancquaert I, Cleret de Langavant G, Bouchard L. L'évaluation des technologies de la santé à l'ère de la génomique. Le défi de la complexité. Ruptures, revue transdisciplinaire en santé. 2002;9:22-38.
3. Cleret de Langavant G. Bioéthique: Méthode et complexité. Québec: Les Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2001.
4. Coyne JC. Cochrane reviews v industry supported metaanalyses: We should read all reviews with caution. BMJ. 2006;333:916.
5. Daniels N. Wide reflective equilibrium in practice. In: Daniels N, ed. Justice and justification. Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
6. Decker M. The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:139-156.
7. Droste S, Dintsios CM, Gerber A. Information on ethical issues in health technology assessment: How and where to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:441-449.
8. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten - eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DAHTA@DIMDI), Köln, 2003.
9. EUnetHTA. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions, v1.0r. Work Package 4. Helsinki: Finnish Office for HTA; 2008. http://www.eunethta.net/ upload/WP4/Final% 20Deliverables/HTA%20Core%20Model%20for%20Medical %20and%20Surgical%20Interventions%201%200r.pdf (accessed February 4, 2011).
10. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA. 1999;282:1453-1457.
11. Gallo P. Integrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:103-117.
12. Gillon R. Philosophical medical ethics. London: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.
13. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175-193.
14. Health Council of the Netherlands. Ethical aspects of costutility analysis. 4th National Ethics Councils in EU Countries, Amsterdam, December 22, 2004.
15. Hofmann B. Stuck in the middle: The many moral challenges with bariatric surgery. Am J Bioeth. 2010;10:3-11.
16. Hofmann B. Towards a procedure for integrating moral issues in HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312-318.
17. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277-295.
18. Hofmann B. How ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423-429.
19. Hofmann B. The technological invention of disease [thesis]. Oslo: University of Oslo Press; 2002.
20. INAHTA. Handling ethical issues in INAHTA agencies. INAHTA Newsletter, March 2003. www.inahta.org/upload/Newsletters/Newsletter%20Jan-Mar%2003.pdf (accessed February 4, 2011).
21. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA's Working Group on Handling Ethical Issues. Final Report, June 2005, pp. 1-21. www.inahta.org/upload/ Final%20report%20Ethics%20in% 20HTA%20Nov%2007.pdf (accessed February 4, 2011).
22. Johri M, Lehoux P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:179-193.
23. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-46.
24. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2002-2009.
25. Leventhal E, Brodin H, Gabbay J. The incorporation of ethics in health technology assessments - a new conceptual framework. A report for the NHS NCCHTA based on a Masters dissertation for an MSc in International Health Policy, University of Southampton, 2004.
26. Leys M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317-329.
27. 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. 2003;11:69-92.
28. Oortwijn W. First things first: Priority setting for health technology assessment (dissertation). University of Amsterdam; 2000;207.
29. Reuzel RPB. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:119-137.
30. Reuzel RPB. Health Technology assessment and interactive evaluation. Different perspectives. Nijmegen University; 2001.
31. Reuzel R, van der Wilt GJ, ten have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: Interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med Health Care Philos 1999;2:255-263.
32. Sandercock J, Burls A, Hyde C, et al. Riluzole for motor neurone disease. More trials are needed. BMJ. 2001;322:1305.
33. Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman DJ. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
34. Stewart A, Sandercock J, Bryan S, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1-97.
35. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:521-524.
36. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:71-76.
37. Van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment: Trying to bring empirical and ethical inquiry together. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:195-206.
38. Weingarten MA, Paul M, Leibovici L. Assessing ethics of trials in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2004;328:1013-1014.