Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:29:59.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ETHICS EVALUATION REVEALING DECISION-MAKER MOTIVES: A CASE OF NEONATAL SCREENING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2018

Véronique Raimond Open the ORCID record for Véronique Raimond [Opens in a new window] ,
Cléa Sambuc  and
Leslie Pibouleau
Véronique Raimond
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de santé, Department of Economic and Public Health [email protected]
Cléa Sambuc
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de santé, Department of Economic and Public Health Evaluation
Leslie Pibouleau
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de santé, Department of Economic and Public Health Evaluation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This paper aims to describe the added value of combining cost-effectiveness and ethical evaluations when the preferences of the decision maker toward cost-effectiveness evaluation outcomes are not known, with the French national neonatal screening of cystic fibrosis (CF) as a case-study.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four CF neonatal screening strategies, with or without DNA testing, was performed. Ethical positions toward their outcomes were described. In addition, a post-hoc analysis of the ethical issues being considered relevant from the decision-makers’ perspective was conducted.

Results: Two strategies were found equally cost-effective. Among them, choosing the non-DNA or a DNA-based strategy constrains the decision maker to render a judgement between different ethical issues or disagreements associated with the screening program.

Conclusions: The analysis supports the relevance of combining cost-effectiveness and ethics evaluation in developing health policy, as a way to reveal or clarify the motives associated with health. The choice of the decision maker to favor the DNA-based strategy, which was not originally recommended, creates the opportunity to make explicit the role played by ethical issues in the decision.

Keywords

Cost-effectivenessEthicsScreening
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , 2018 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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. Association française pour le dépistage et la prévention des handicaps de l'enfant. Bilan d'activité 2015 [Internet]. Paris: AFDPHE; 2015. http://www.afdphe.org/sites/default/files/bilan_afdphe_2015.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
2. Haute Autorité de santé. Place de la stratégie couplant les dosages de la trypsine immunoréactive (TIR) et de la protéine associée à la pancréatite (PAP) dans le dépistage systématique de la mucoviscidose en France. [Internet]. Saint-Denis la Plaine: HAS; 2015. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/place_de_la_strategie_couplant_les_dosages_de_la_tir_et_de_la_pap_dans_le_depistage_systematique_de_la_mucoviscidose_en_france.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
3. Norheim, OF, Baltussen, R, Johri, M, et al. Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): The inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc CE. 2014;12:18.Google Scholar
4. Hofmann, BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:423-429.Google Scholar
5. Saarni, SI, Hofmann, B, Lampe, K, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:617-623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hofmann, B, Lysdahl, KB, Droste, S. Evaluation of ethical aspects in health technology assessment: More methods than applications? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:5-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Assasi, N, Schwartz, L, Tarride, J-E, O'Reilly, D, Goeree, R. Barriers and facilitators influencing ethical evaluation in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:113-123.Google Scholar
8. Scott, AM, Bond, K, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I, Hofmann, B, Sandman, L. Quality assessment of ethics analyses for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:362-369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Vaincre la Mucoviscidose, Institut national d’études démographiques. Registre français de la mucoviscidose – Bilan des données 2014 [Internet]. Paris: Vaincre la mucoviscidose; 2016. http://www.vaincrelamuco.org/sites/default/files/rapport_registre_2014.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
10. Grosse, SD. Showing value in newborn screening: Challenges in quantifying the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early detection of phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis. Healthcare. 2015;3:1133-1157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Haute Autorité de santé. Le dépistage néonatal systématique de la mucoviscidose en France: État des lieux et perspectives après 5 ans de fonctionnement [Internet]. Saint-Denis la Plaine: HAS; 2009 Jun [cited 2015 Jun 22]. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_765713/fr/le-depistage-neonatal-systematique-de-la-mucovsicidose-en-france-etat-des-lieux-et-perspectives-apres-5-ans-de-fonctionnement (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
12. Sarles, J, Berthézène, P, Le Louarn, C, et al. Combining immunoreactive trypsinogen and pancreatitis-associated protein assays, a method of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis that avoids DNA analysis. J Pediatr. 2005;147:302-305.Google Scholar
13. Sarles, J, Giorgi, R, Berthézène, P, et al. Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: Comparing the performances of IRT/DNA and IRT/PAP. J Cyst Fibros Off J Eur Cyst Fibros Soc. 2014;13:384-390.Google Scholar
14. Association française pour le dépistage et la prévention des handicaps de l'enfant. Bilan d'activité 2014 [Internet]. Paris: AFDPHE; 2014 [cited 2016 Jan 14]. http://www.afdphe.org/sites/default/files/bilan_afdphe_2014.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
15. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford; New York: OUP Oxford; 2005. 400 p.Google Scholar
16. Haute Autorité de santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. [Internet]. Saint-Denis la Plaine: HAS; 2012. (Methodological guide). http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
17. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:117-122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Gold, MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. 462 p.Google Scholar
19. Haute Autorité de santé. Assessment of ethical aspects [Internet]. Saint-Denis la Plaine: HAS; 2013 [cited 2015 Jun 22]. (Methodological guide). http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-11/assessment_of_ethical_aspects.pdf (accessed March 14, 2018).Google Scholar
20. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th revised edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 1994. 556 p.Google Scholar
21. Nshimyumukiza, L, Bois, A, Daigneault, P, et al. Cost effectiveness of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: A simulation study. J Cyst Fibros. 2014;13:267-274.Google Scholar
22. van der Ploeg, CPB, van den Akker-van Marle, ME, Vernooij-van Langen, AMM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis determined with real-life data. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14:194-202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Seror, V, Cao, C, Roussey, M, Giorgi, R. PAP assays in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: A population-based cost-effectiveness study. J Med Screen. 2016;23:62-69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Richardson, HS. Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philos Public Aff. 1990;19:279-310.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Raimond et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S2 and Tables S1-S6

Download Raimond et al. supplementary material(File)
File 295.9 KB