Skip to main content

Guidance for considering ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment: Application to genetic screening

  • Beth K. Potter (a1), Denise Avard (a2), Ian D. Graham (a3), Vikki A. Entwistle (a4), Timothy A. Caulfield (a5), Pranesh Chakraborty (a6), Christine Kennedy (a7), Marissa McGuire (a1), Glenn G. Griener (a5), Mark Montgomery (a8), George A. Wells (a9) and Brenda J. Wilson (a1)...

Objectives and Methods: Many authors have argued that ethical, legal, and social issues (“ELSIs”) should be explicitly integrated into health technology assessment (HTA), yet doing so poses challenges. This discussion may be particularly salient for technologies viewed as ethically complex, such as genetic screening. Here we provide a brief overview of contemporary discussions of the issues from the HTA literature. We then describe key existing policy evaluation frameworks in the fields of disease screening and public health genomics. Finally, we map the insights from the HTA literature to the policy evaluation frameworks, with discussion of the implications for HTA in genetic screening.

Results and Conclusions: A critical discussion in the HTA literature considers the definition of ELSIs in HTA, highlighting the importance of thinking beyond ELSIs as impacts of technology. Existing HTA guidance on integrating ELSIs relates to three broad approaches: literature synthesis, involvement of experts, and consideration of stakeholder values. The thirteen key policy evaluation frameworks relating to disease screening and public health genomics identified a range of ELSIs relevant to genetic screening. Beyond straightforward impacts of screening, these ELSIs require consideration of factors such as the social and political context surrounding policy decisions. The three broad approaches to addressing ELSIs described above are apparent in the screening/genomics literatures. In integrating these findings we suggest that the method chosen for addressing ELSIs in HTA for genetic screening may determine which ELSIs are prioritized; and that an important challenge is the lack of guidance for evaluating such methods.

Hide All
1. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2006;82:3750.
2. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:317319.
3. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:18.
4. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:14641467.
5. Braunack-Mayer AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307312.
6. Burke W, Atkins D, Gwinn M, et al. Genetic test evaluation: Information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:311318.
7. Burke W, Coughlin SS, Lee NC, Weed DL, Khoury MJ. Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions. Genet Test. 2001;5:201211.
8. Burke W, Khoury MJ, Stewart A, Zimmern RL. The path from genome-based research to population health: Development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med. 2006;8:451458.
9. Burke W, Zimmern R. Moving beyond ACCE: An expanded framework for genetic test evaluation. A Paper for the United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network. 2007.
10. Burke W, Zimmern R, Kroese M. Defining purpose: A key step in genetic test evaluation. Genet Med. 2007;9:675681.
11. Burke W, Zimmern RL. Ensuring the appropriate use of genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:955959.
12. Caulfield T, Burgess MM, Williams-Jones B. Providing genetic testing through the private sector. A view from Canada. ISUMA: Can J Policy Res. 2001;2:7281.
13. Caulfield TA. The informed gatekeeper?: A commentary on genetic tests, marketing pressure and the role of primary care physicians. Health Law Rev. 2001;9:1418.
14. Culyer AJ. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions – the experience of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthc Q. 2005;8:5458.
15. Deber RB, Narine L, Baranek P, et al. The public-private mix in health care. In: National Forum on Health, ed. Striking a balance: Health care systems in Canada and elsewhere. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Éditions MultiMondes; 1998.
16. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:8995.
17. Giacomini M, Miller F, Browman G. Confronting the “gray zones” of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:301316.
18. Godard B, ten Kate L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Ayme S. Population genetic screening programmes: Principles, techniques, practices, and policies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11 (Suppl 2):S49-S87.
19. Goel V. Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. BMJ. 2001;322:11741178.
20. Grin J. Health technology assessment between our health care system and our health. Exploring the potential of reflexive HTA. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:174.
21. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med. 2006;8:448450.
22. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175193.
23. Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, et al. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117122.
24. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE. ACCE: A model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W, eds. Human genome epidemiology. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 2004:217233.
25. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.
26. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:2135.
27. Health Technology Assessment Task Group. Health technology strategy 1.0. Final report. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee on Information and Emerging Technologies. 2004.
28. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312318.
29. Holtzman NA, Watson MS. Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States. Final report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing. National Institutes of Health. 1997.
30. INAHTA. INAHTA website. Definitions. 2007.
31. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. Final report. INAHTA. 2005.
32. Johri M, Lehoux P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:179193.
33. Kenny N, Giacomini M. Wanted: A new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal. 2005;13:247260.
34. Kroese M, Zimmern RL, Farndon P, Stewart F, Whittaker J. How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:917921.
35. Kroese M, Zimmern RL, Sanderson S. Genetic tests and their evaluation: Can we answer the key questions? Genet Med. 2004;6:475480.
36. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.
37. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:10831120.
38. 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.
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.
40. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. 2005.
41. Marquez Calderon S, Briones Perez de la Blanca E. Framework for the assessment of genetic testing in the Andalusian Public Health System. Seville: Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment. 2006.
42. McNally E, Cambon-Thomsen A, Brazell C, et al. 25 Recommendations on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing. European Commission. 2004.
43. 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;11:6992.
44. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. MSAC.$File/guidelines2.pdf. 2005.
45. National Screening Committee (NSC). First report of the National Screening Committee. NSC. 1998.
46. National Screening Committee (NSC). Second report of the UK National Screening Committee. NSC. 2000.
47. National Screening Committee (NSC). Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. NSC. 2003.
48. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic screening: A supplement to the 1993 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Council. 2006.
49. Oortwijn W, Reuzel R, Decker M. Introduction. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:97101.
50. Reuzel R. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:119137.
51. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:247256.
52. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493497.
53. Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, Pennacchini M, Carrasco de Paula I. Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;
54. Sanderson S, Zimmern R, Kroese M, et al. How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2005;7:495500.
55. Sawaya GF, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:871875.
56. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. U.S. system of oversight of genetic testing: A response to the charge of the secretary of Health and Human Services. 2008.
57. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:7176.
58. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. , on behalf of the EGAPP Working Group. The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: Methods of the EGAPP working group. Genet Med. 2008. In press.
59. UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) steering group. Procedures and criteria for the evaluation of genetic tests for NHS Service (Gene Dossier). UKGTN. 2003.
60. Van Der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103115.
61. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 32 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 243 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.