Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:11:22.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2015

Nazila Assasi ,
Lisa Schwartz ,
Jean-Eric Tarride ,
Daria O’Reilly  and
Ron Goeree
Nazila Assasi
Affiliation:
Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster [email protected]
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentEthical analysisBarriersFacilitatorsSurvey
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 113 - 123
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

REFERENCES

1. Velasco Garrido, M, Gerhardus, A, Rottingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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;2:26–44.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.Google 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;24:437–444.Google Scholar
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;25:463–469.Google Scholar
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;20:325–336.Google 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;24:133–139.Google Scholar
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;21:89–95.Google Scholar
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;21:312–318.Google Scholar
15. Duthie, K, Bond, K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:64–70.Google Scholar
16. Saarni, SI, Hofmann, B, Lampe, K, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Org. 2008;86:617–623.Google Scholar
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;14:203–220.Google Scholar
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;27:50–54.Google Scholar
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;3:40–50.Google Scholar
23. Hofmann, BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423–429.Google Scholar
24. Hofmann, B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277–295.Google Scholar
25. Reuzel, R, Oortwijn, W, Decker, M, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:247–256.Google Scholar
26. Gallo, P. Integrating ethical inquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:103–117.Google 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;32:127–128.Google Scholar
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;24:412–422.Google Scholar
29. Sacchini, D, Virdis, A, Refolo, P, Pennacchini, M, de Paula, IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2009;12:453–457.Google Scholar
30. ten Have, HA. Medical technology assessment and ethics. Hastings Center Report. 1995;25:13–19.Google Scholar
31. Grunwald, A. Technology assessment or ethics of technology? Ethical Perspect. 1999;2:170–182.Google 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;26:334–340.Google Scholar
33. Hofmann, B. Health Technology Assessment - science or art? GMS Health Technol Assess. 2013;9:Doc08.Google Scholar
34. Giacomini, M, Winsor, S, Abelson, J. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum. 2013;26:72–76.Google Scholar
35. Grunwald, A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175–193.Google Scholar
36. Braunack-Mayer, AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307–312.Google Scholar
37. Giacomini, M, Kenny, N, DeJean, D. Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing? Health Policy. 2009;89:58–71.Google Scholar
38. Van Der Wilt, GJ, Reuzel, R, Banta, HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103–115.Google Scholar
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;23:9–16.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.Google Scholar
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):6–15.Google 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;30:131–136.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;17:888–900.Google 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 Scholar
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;30:3–9.Google Scholar
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;73:135–144.Google Scholar
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;82:37–50.Google 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.Google Scholar
50. Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–163.Google Scholar
51. Baruch, Y, Holtom, BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat. 2008;61:1139–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 1

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 20.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 2

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 20.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Assasi supplementary material

Assasi supplementary material 3

Download Assasi supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB