REVEALING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VALUE JUDGMENTS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 579-586

  Hofmann, Bjørn ^a   Cleemput, Irina ^b   Bond, Kenneth ^c   Krones, Tanja ^d   Droste, Sigrid ^e   Sacchini, Dario ^f   Oortwijn, Wija ^g  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^e INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^f CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^g ECORYS Netherlands   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomedical; Biomedical technology assessment; Ethics; Morality; Morals; Norms; Personal value; Technology Assessment; Values

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

BIOMEDICAL; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES; ETHICS; MORALITY; MORALS; NORMS; PERSONAL VALUE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; VALUES;

HEALTH;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; ULTRASOUND; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ETHICS;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84926457751     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462314000671     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 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;27:50-54.
2. Wallay T. Health technology assessment in England: Assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust. 2007;187:283-285.
3. Putnam H. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2002.
4. Hennen L. Biomedical and bioethical issues in parliamentary TA and in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:207-220.
5. Flyvbjerg B. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 2001.
6. Meggle G, Nida-Rümelin J (Eds.). [Actions, norms, values: Discussions with Georg Henrik von Wright]. Berlin: de Gruyter; 1999.
7. Molewijk B, 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.
8. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312-318.
9. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277-295.
10. Nord E. Cost-value analysis in health care: Making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
11. Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(pt 2):231-245.
12. Johri M, Norheim OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:125-132.
13. Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research: The relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:889-897.
14. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: A review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5:210-222.
15. Burls A, Caron L, de Langavant GC, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:230-237.
16. Droste S, Rixen S. [Information on legal issues in health technologies: Methodological proposal to identify them in a systematic and comprehensible manner]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106:509-522.
17. Hofmann B.Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423-429.
18. European Network for Health Technology Assessment EUnetHTA, The HTA Core Model∗: Version 2.0. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL); 2013. http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/HTACoreModel2.0.pdf (accessed February 11, 2015).
19. Velasco Garrido M, Borlum Kristensen F, Palmhoj Nielsen C, Busse R. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008.
20. Green C. Considering the value associated with innovation in health technology appraisal decisions (deliberations): A NICE thing to do? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8:1-5.
21. Oortwijn WJ, van der Wilt GJ. [Distributive justice and health technology assessment in the Netherlands: Analysis of six projects funded within the Fund for Investigative Medicine]. Nijmegen: Universitair Medisch Centrum St Radboud, Afdeling MTA; 2003.
22. Tunis SR. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: A conversation with David Eddy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:w500-w515.
23. Hoedemaekers R, Oortwijn W. Problematic notions in Dutch health care package decisions. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:287-294.
24. Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. Managing scarcity: Priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996.
25. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135-144.