Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study

  • Samuli I. Saarni (a1), Annette Braunack-Mayer (a2), Bjørn Hofmann (a3) and Gert Jan van der Wilt (a4)

Abstract

Objectives: Ethical analysis can highlight important ethical issues related to implementing a technology, values inherent in the technology itself, and value-decisions underlying the health technology assessment (HTA) process. Ethical analysis is a well-acknowledged part of HTA, yet seldom included in practice. One reason for this is lack of knowledge about the properties and differences between the methods available. This study compares different methods for ethical analysis within HTA.

Methods: Ethical issues related to bariatric (obesity) surgery were independently evaluated using axiological, casuist, principlist, and EUnetHTA models for ethical analysis within HTA. The methods and results are presented and compared.

Results: Despite varying theoretical underpinnings and practical approaches, the four methods identified similar themes: personal responsibility, self-infliction, discrimination, justice, public funding, and stakeholder involvement. The axiological and EUnetHTA models identified a wider range of arguments, whereas casuistry and principlism concentrated more on analyzing a narrower set of arguments deemed more important.

Conclusions: Different methods can be successfully used for conducting ethical analysis within HTA. Although our study does not show that different methods in ethics always produce similar results, it supports the view that different methods of ethics can yield relevantly similar results. This suggests that the key conclusions of ethical analyses within HTA can be transferable between methods and countries. The systematic and transparent use of some method of ethics appears more important than the choice of the exact method.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th Edition (1 st ed. 1979). New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
2. Braunack-Mayer, AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307312.
3. Brennan, J. The open-texture of moral concepts. London: Macmillan; 1977.
4. Buchwald, H, Avidor, Y, Braunwald, E, et al. Bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:17241737.
5. Colquitt, JL, Picot, J, Loveman, E, Clegg, AJ. Surgery for obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009: CD003641.
6. Droste, S, Gerhardus, A, Kollek, R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten – eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. [Methods for the assessment of ethical aspects and moral concepts in society in health technology assessment reports – an international survey]. Schriftenreihe HTA des DIMDI vol. 9. Köln; 2003.
7. Heitman, E. Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:544566.
8. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312318.
9. Hofmann, B. On value-judgments and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277295.
10. Hofmann, B. Etikk i vurdering av helsetiltak. Utvikling av en metode for å synliggjøre etiske utfordringer ved vurdering av helsetiltak. [In Norwegian with an English summary: Ethics in the assessment of health technology]. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services; 2008.
11. Hofmann, B. Stuck in the middle: The many moral challenges with bariatric surgery. Am J Bioeth. 2010;10:311.
12. Hofmann, BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423429.
13. Ikonen, T, Anttila, H, Gylling, H, et al. Sairaalloisen lihavuuden leikkaushoito. [Surgical treatment of morbid obesity. In Finnish]. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare; 2009.
14. Jonsen, AR. Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics. Theor Med. 1991;12:295307.
15. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, eds. HTA Core Model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0R: http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/HTA%20Core%20Model%20for%20Medical%20and%20Surgical%20Interventions%201%200r.pdf 2008 (accessed August 29, 2011).
16. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Garrido, MV, et al. The HTA core model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):920.
17. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, S, Denis, JL, Hivon, M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325336.
18. Mitka, M. Surgery for obesity: Demand soars amid scientific, ethical questions. JAMA. 2003;289:17611762.
19. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment; 1976.
20. Puhl, RM, Heuer, CA. The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17:941964.
21. Raper, SE, Sarwer, DB. Informed consent issues in the conduct of bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4:6068.
22. Saarni, SI, Anttila, H, Saarni, SE, et al. Ethical issues of bariatric surgery - a health technology assessment. Obes Surg. 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
23. Saarni, SI, Hofmann, B, Lampe, K, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:617623.
24. ten Have, H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:7176.
25. Van der Wilt, GJ, Reuzel, R, Banta, HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103115.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Saarni et al. supplementary material
Supplementary tables 1-3

 Unknown (33 KB)
33 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed