Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 10
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Rogowski, Wolf H. Grosse, Scott D. and Khoury, Muin J. 2009. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 10, Issue. 7, p. 489.

    Whitty, Jennifer A. 2013. An International Survey of the Public Engagement Practices of Health Technology Assessment Organizations. Value in Health, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 155.

    Giacomini, Mita Winsor, Shawn and Abelson, Julia 2013. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthcare Management Forum, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 72.

    Osman, Essam 2011. Laser refractive surgery in glaucoma patients. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 25, Issue. 2, p. 169.

    Ali-Khan, Sarah E. Black, Lee Palmour, Nicole Hallett, Michael T. and Avard, Denise 2015. SOCIO-ETHICAL ISSUES IN PERSONALIZED MEDICINE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS OF GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING TESTS FOR BREAST CANCER PROGNOSIS. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 31, Issue. 1-2, p. 36.

    Assasi, Nazila Schwartz, Lisa Tarride, Jean-Eric O’Reilly, Daria and Goeree, Ron 2015. BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 31, Issue. 03, p. 113.

    Droste, Sigrid and Rixen, Stephan 2012. Informationen zu rechtlichen Aspekten von Gesundheitstechnologien: Methodenvorschlag zur systematischen und nachvollziehbaren Identifizierung. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, Vol. 106, Issue. 7, p. 509.

    Assasi, Nazila Schwartz, Lisa Tarride, Jean-Eric Campbell, Kaitryn and Goeree, Ron 2014. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 203.

    McClellan, Kelly A Avard, Denise Simard, Jacques and Knoppers, Bartha M 2013. Personalized medicine and access to health care: potential for inequitable access?. European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 21, Issue. 2, p. 143.

    Rogowski, Wolf H. Grosse, Scott D. John, Jürgen Kääriäinen, Helena Kent, Alastair Kristofferson, Ulf and Schmidtke, Jörg 2010. Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests. Journal of Community Genetics, Vol. 1, Issue. 4, p. 185.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 24, Issue 4
  • October 2008, pp. 412-422

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


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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.J Abelson , M Giacomini , P Lehoux , FP Gauvin . Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2006;82:3750.

2.A Andermann , I Blancquaert , S Beauchamp , V Dery . 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.

6.W Burke , D Atkins , M Gwinn , Genetic test evaluation: Information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:311318.

7.W Burke , SS Coughlin , NC Lee , DL Weed , MJ Khoury . Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions. Genet Test. 2001;5:201211.

8.W Burke , MJ Khoury , A Stewart , RL Zimmern . The path from genome-based research to population health: Development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med. 2006;8:451458.

10.W Burke , R Zimmern , M Kroese . Defining purpose: A key step in genetic test evaluation. Genet Med. 2007;9:675681.

11.W Burke , RL Zimmern . Ensuring the appropriate use of genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:955959.

14.AJ Culyer . Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions – the experience of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthc Q. 2005;8:5458.

18.B Godard , ten L Kate , G Evers-Kiebooms , S Ayme . Population genetic screening programmes: Principles, techniques, practices, and policies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11 (Suppl 2):S49-S87.

19.V Goel . Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. BMJ. 2001;322:11741178.

20.J Grin . Health technology assessment between our health care system and our health. Exploring the potential of reflexive HTA. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:174.

21.SD Grosse , MJ Khoury . What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med. 2006;8:448450.

22.A Grunwald . The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175193.

23.J Guirguis-Blake , N Calonge , T Miller , Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117122.

25.D Hailey , M Nordwall . Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497499.

26.RP Harris , M Helfand , SH Woolf , Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:2135.

33.N Kenny , M Giacomini . Wanted: A new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal. 2005;13:247260.

34.M Kroese , RL Zimmern , P Farndon , F Stewart , J Whittaker . How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15:917921.

35.M Kroese , RL Zimmern , S Sanderson . Genetic tests and their evaluation: Can we answer the key questions? Genet Med. 2004;6:475480.

37.P Lehoux , S Blume . Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:10831120.

43.AC Molewijk , AM Stiggelbout , W Otten , HM Dupuis , J Kievit . Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: A plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:6992.

49.W Oortwijn , R Reuzel , M Decker . Introduction. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:97101.

50.R Reuzel . Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:119137.

51.R Reuzel , W Oortwijn , M Decker , Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:247256.

53.D Sacchini , A Virdis , P Refolo , M Pennacchini , I Carrasco de Paula . Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;

54.S Sanderson , R Zimmern , M Kroese , 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.GF Sawaya , J Guirguis-Blake , M LeFevre , R Harris , D Petitti . 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.

60.GJ Van Der Wilt , R Reuzel , HD Banta . The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103115.

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? *