Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 203-220

  Assasi, Nazila ^a   Schwartz, Lisa ^a,b   Tarride, Jean Eric ^a   Campbell, Kaitryn ^a   Goeree, Ron ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ethics; Frameworks; Health technology assessment; Methodology; Systeamtic review

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ETHICS; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84896263330     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2014.894464     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Technology Assessment. HTA Resources. 2011
2. Ten HH. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20(1):71-6
3. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, et al. Ethics and HTA: some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax 2004;2:247-56
4. Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24(4): 423-9
5. Dejean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4):463-9
6. Lavis J, Wilson M, Grimshaw J, et al. Towards optimally packaged and relevance assessed health technology assessments, Report Submitted to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Healthcare. McMaster University Program in Policy Decision-Making, Hamilton, Ontario; 2007
7. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(1):50-4
8. 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(1):9-16
9. Duthie K, Bond K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(1): 64-70
10. Saarni SI, Braunack-Mayer A, Hofmann B, Van Der Wilt GJ. Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: an empirical study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(4): 305-12
11. Saarni SI, Hofmann B, Lampe K, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86(8):617-23
12. Potter BK, Avard D, Graham ID, et al. Guidance for considering ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment: Application to genetic screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24(4): 412-22
13. 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(4):441-9
14. Niederstadt C, Droste S. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26(4):450-7
15. Ethical resources for decision making. In: Boetzkes E, Waluchow WJ, editors. Readings in health care ethics. Broadview Press; Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: 2000
16. Culyer AJ, Bombard Y. An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making 2012;32(3): 428-41
17. Burls A, Caron L, Cleret De LG, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27(3): 230-7
18. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decisionmaking framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2010;8:4
19. Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, et al. Health technology assessment (HTA): ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos 2009;12(4):453-7
20. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, et al. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23(2): 162-8
21. Lessard C. Complexity and reflexivity: two important issues for economic evaluation in health care. Soc Sci Med 2007;64(8):1754-65
22. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2005;3:277-95
23. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21(3):312-18
24. 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(2):193-223
25. Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis Prax 2004;2:221-46
26. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax 2004;2: 175-93
27. Reuzel RP, Van Der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, et al. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 2001;26(3):245-61
28. Van Der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2000;21(1):103-15
29. Reuzel RP, 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(3):255-63
30. Johnson A, Sikich N, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment - A comprehensive framework for evidencebased recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(02): 141-50
31. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23(1):1-8
32. Kidholm K Ekeland AG, et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012;28(1):44-51
33. Mahoney DF, Purtilo RB, Webbe FM, et al. In-home monitoring of persons with dementia: Ethical guidelines for technology research and development. Alzheimers Dement 2007;3(3):217-26
34. Elsner D. Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure. J Med Ethics 2006; 32(10):596-600
35. Williams-Jones B, Graham JE. Actor- Network Theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genet Soc 2003;22(3):271-96
36. Beauchamp TL, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press; New York, USA: 2001
37. Equity-Oriented Toolkit [online; December 2008 Edition]. World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity. 2004
38. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model-online. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 2012
39. A checklist for health technology assessment reports [Version 3.2]. INAHTA Secretariat, Stockholm. 2007
40. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA's Working Group on Handling Ethical Issues. Final Report. 2005
41. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18(2):361-422
42. 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(2):186-219
43. Methodenhandbuch für Health Technology Assessment [Version 1.2010]. Gesundheit Österreich GmbH, Vienna. 2011
44. Cleemput I, Van den Bruel A, Kohn L, et al. Search for Evidence & Critical Appraisal: Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels. 2007
45. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H. Health technology assessment handbook. Danish Centre for Health technology Assessment, National Board of Health, Copenhagen. 2007
46. Handbuch für Autoren zur Erstellung von HTA-Berichten [Version: 02-08]. German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI), cologne. 2008
47. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. Deutschen Agentur für Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DAHTA@DIMDI), Köln. 2003
48. Guidelines fot the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland. Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Dublin. 2010
49. Hofmann B. Etikk i vurdering av helsetiltak. Utvikling av en metode for åsynliggjøre etiske utfordringer ved vurdering av helsetiltak. Rapport nr 26-2008. Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten (NOKC), Oslo. 2008
50. Guidelines for Conducting Health Technology Assessment [Version 2.1]. Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland (AHTAPol), Warsaw. 2009
51. Hausmann A, Arellano LE, Guerra M, Blasco JA, Grupo de Elaboración y Validaciónde Instrumentos de Evaluación de la Calidad de los productos de Agencias/Unidades de Evaluación deTecnologías Sanitarias (GEVIEC). Development and Validation of Methods for Quality Assessment of Health Technologies Assessments Reports: Assessment of Ethical Issues in Health Technologies Assessment [HTA report UETS2007/1; in Spanish]. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (EUTS), Agencia Laín Entralgo, Madrid; 2010
52. SBU. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården - En handbok [Version 2013-03- 25]. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering (SBU), Stockholm. 2013
53. Schlander M, Affolter C, Sandmeier H, et al. Swiss HTA Concensus Project: Guiding Principles. Institute for Innovation adn Valuation in Health Care, Basel, Bern and Weisbaden. 2012
54. National Institute for Health and CLinical Excellence (NICE). Social value judgementsL principles for the development of NICE guidance (second edition). NICE, London. 2008
55. National Institute for Health and CLinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (second edition). NICE, London. 2008
56. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technolgies: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) [3rd Edition]. Ottawa, Canada: 2006
57. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for authors of CADTH health technology assessment reports (2003 revision). CADTH, Ottawa. 2001
58. Hanvoravongchai P. Health system and equity perspectives in health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai 2008; 91(Suppl 2):S74-87
59. EUnetHTA WP4. HTA Core Model- for Medical and Surgical Interventions 1.0R. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). 2008
60. EUnetHTA WP4. HTA Core Model- for Diagnostic Technologies 1.0R. 2008
61. WP4 EUnetHTA Joint Action (2010-12). HTA Core Model- for Screening Technologies Version 1.0. 2012
62. WP4 EUnetHTA Joint Action (2010-12). HTA Core Model- for SRapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals Version 3.0. 2013
63. Yusuf K, Amasiora V, Ashanu E. Recognizing biotechnology as a tool for sustainable development. Afr J Biotechnol 2010;9(52):8905-7
64. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(2):239-51
65. Garrido MV, Amaro JAB, Cichietti A, et al. Health technology assessment in Europeoverview of the producers. In: Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. WHO; Copenhagen, Denmark: 2008. p. 79