Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-msmtk Total loading time: 0.443 Render date: 2022-07-06T17:55:24.540Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

Nazila Assasi
Affiliation:
Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster Universityassasin@mcmaster.ca
Lisa Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University; Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University
Jean-Eric Tarride
Affiliation:
Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University
Daria O’Reilly
Affiliation:
Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University
Ron Goeree
Affiliation:
Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of ethical considerations in health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: The study consisted of two complementary approaches: (a) a systematic review of the literature; and (b) an eighteen-item online survey that was distributed to fifty-six HTA agencies affiliated with the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: The review identified twenty-six relevant articles. The most often cited barriers in the literature were: scarcity, heterogeneity and complexity of ethical analysis methods; challenges in translating ethical analysis results into knowledge that is useful for decision makers; and lack of organizational support in terms of required expertise, time and financial resources. The most frequently cited facilitators included: usage of value-based appraisal methods, stakeholder and public engagement, enhancement of practice guidelines, ethical expertise, and educational interventions.

Representatives of twenty-six (46.5 percent) agencies from nineteen countries completed the survey. A median of 10 percent (interquartile range, 5 percent to 50 percent) of the HTA products produced by the agencies was reported to include an assessment of ethical aspects. The most commonly perceived barriers were: limited ethical knowledge and expertise, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in finding ethical evidence or using ethical guidelines. Educational interventions, demand by policy makers, and involvement of ethicists in HTA were the most commonly perceived facilitators.

Conclusions: Our results emphasize the importance of simplification of ethics methodology and development of good practice guidelines in HTA, as well as capacity building for engaging HTA practitioners in ethical analyses.

Type
Methods
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Velasco Garrido, M, Gerhardus, A, Rottingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Burls, A, Caron, L, Cleret de Langavant, G, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:230–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. European Patients’ Forum. Patient involvement in health technology assessment - An interim report on EPF's survey with decision makers in Europe. Brussels: European Patients’ Forum; 2011.Google Scholar
4. Scott, A, Harstall, C. Utilizing diverse HTA products in the Alberta Health Technologies Decision Process: Work in progress. Edmonton, AB: Institute of Health Economics; 2012.Google Scholar
5. 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. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University Program in Policy Decision-Making; 2007.Google Scholar
6. Stephens, JM, Handke, B, Doshi, JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comp Eff Res. 2012;2:2644.Google Scholar
7. Mathes, T, Jacobs, E, Morfeld, JC, Pieper, D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations-a comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Tarride, JE, McCarron, CE, Lim, M, et al. Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:437444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. DeJean, D, Giacomini, M, Schwartz, L, Miller, FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, S, Denis, J-L, Hivon, M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Bo Poulsen, P, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M, Dibidino, R, Corio, M. Hospital based health technology assessment. Worldwide survey. HTAi Hospital Based HTA interest sub-group; 2008. http://www.htai.org/resources/interest-sub-groups-publications.html (accessed March 10, 2015).Google Scholar
14. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Duthie, K, Bond, K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:6470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Saarni, SI, Hofmann, B, Lampe, K, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Org. 2008;86:617623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Assasi, N, Schwartz, L, Tarride, JE, et al. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:203220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Results of the survey on Ethical Issues among INAHTA organizations. 2003. http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/inahta-member-surveys (accessed March 10, 2015)Google Scholar
19. 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;27:5054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Stoklosa, A, Bond, K. Workshop on methodology in ethics for health technology assessment: Assessing the need for and quality of ethics analyses in HTA. Edmonton, Canada and Cologne, Germany. 2013. http://www.htai.org/interest-sub-groups/ethics/ethics-resources.html (accessed March 10, 2015).Google Scholar
21. SurveyMonkey [Internet]. Palo Alto, California, USA: SurveyMonkey Inc. www.surveymonkey.com (accessed July 30, 2014).Google Scholar
22. McCormick, JB, Boyce, AM, Ladd, JM, Cho, M. Barriers to considering ethical and societal implications of research: Perceptions of life scientists. AJOB Prim Res. 2012;3:4050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Hofmann, BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Hofmann, B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Reuzel, R, Oortwijn, W, Decker, M, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:247256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Gallo, P. Integrating ethical inquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:103117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. McMillan, J, Sheehan, M, Austin, D, Howell, J. Ethics and opportunity costs: Have NICE grasped the ethics of priority setting? J Med Ethics. 2006;32:127128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. 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;24:412422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Sacchini, D, Virdis, A, Refolo, P, Pennacchini, M, de Paula, IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2009;12:453457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. ten Have, HA. Medical technology assessment and ethics. Hastings Center Report. 1995;25:1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Grunwald, A. Technology assessment or ethics of technology? Ethical Perspect. 1999;2:170182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Hofmann, B. Health Technology Assessment - science or art? GMS Health Technol Assess. 2013;9:Doc08.Google ScholarPubMed
34. Giacomini, M, Winsor, S, Abelson, J. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum. 2013;26:7276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Grunwald, A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Braunack-Mayer, AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Giacomini, M, Kenny, N, DeJean, D. Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing? Health Policy. 2009;89:5871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Van Der Wilt, GJ, Reuzel, R, Banta, HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Potter, BK, Avard, D, Entwistle, V, et al. Ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment for prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening: A workshop report. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12:4-10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Nielsen, CP, Funch, TM, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16 (Suppl 2):615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Bond, K, Oremus, M, Duthie, KM, Griener, GG. Ethics expertise for health technology assessment: A Camadian national survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:131136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Gagnon, J, et al. Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect. 2014;17:888900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® online. Version 1.4 ed. Helsinki, Finland: National Institute for Health and Welfare; 2012.Google Scholar
45. Hofmann, B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc04.Google ScholarPubMed
46. Hofmann, B, Droste, S, Oortwijn, W, et al. Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: A revision of the Socratic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Bombard, Y, Abelson, J, Simeonov, D, Gauvin, FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin, FP. Bringing public into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82:3750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Leggett, LE, Mackean, G, Noseworthy, TW, et al. Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: Survey and key informant interviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Baruch, Y, Holtom, BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat. 2008;61:11391160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 1

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 21 KB
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 2

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 3

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 18 KB
13
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *