Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:12:12.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Beth K. Potter ,
Denise Avard ,
Ian D. Graham ,
Vikki A. Entwistle ,
Timothy A. Caulfield ,
Pranesh Chakraborty ,
Christine Kennedy ,
Marissa McGuire ,
Glenn G. Griener  and
Mark Montgomery
...Show all authors
Beth K. Potter
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Denise Avard
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Ian D. Graham
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa and Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Vikki A. Entwistle
Affiliation:
University of Dundee
Timothy A. Caulfield
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Pranesh Chakraborty
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Christine Kennedy
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Marissa McGuire
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Glenn G. Griener
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Mark Montgomery
Affiliation:
University of Calgary and Alberta Children's Hospital
George A. Wells
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa and University of Ottawa Heart Institute
Brenda J. Wilson
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Genetic screeningEthicallegaland social issuesHealth technology assessment
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 412 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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. 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;82:37–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;86:317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Autti-Ramo, I, Makela, M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Battista, RN, Hodge, MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:1464–1467.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Braunack-Mayer, AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;156:311–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;5:201–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;8:451–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Burke, W, Zimmern, R. Moving beyond ACCE: An expanded framework for genetic test evaluation. A Paper for the United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network. www.phgfoundation.org. 2007.Google Scholar
10. Burke, W, Zimmern, R, Kroese, M. Defining purpose: A key step in genetic test evaluation. Genet Med. 2007;9:675–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Burke, W, Zimmern, RL. Ensuring the appropriate use of genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5:955–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;2:72–81.Google Scholar
13. Caulfield, TA. The informed gatekeeper?: A commentary on genetic tests, marketing pressure and the role of primary care physicians. Health Law Rev. 2001;9:14–18.Google ScholarPubMed
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;8:54–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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;21:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;19:301–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Goel, V. Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer. BMJ. 2001;322:1174–1178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Grosse, SD, Khoury, MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med. 2006;8:448–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Grunwald, A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;147:117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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; 2004:217–233.Google Scholar
25. Hailey, D, Nordwall, M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;20:21–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Health Technology Assessment Task Group. Health technology strategy 1.0. Final report. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee on Information and Emerging Technologies. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/ehealth-esante/2004-tech-strateg/index_e.html. 2004.Google Scholar
28. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. www.genome.gov/10001733. 1997.Google Scholar
30. INAHTA. INAHTA website. Definitions. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/. 2007.Google Scholar
31. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. Final report. INAHTA. www.inahta.org/HTA/Ethics. 2005.Google Scholar
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;19:179–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Kenny, N, Giacomini, M. Wanted: A new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal. 2005;13:247–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;15:917–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Kroese, M, Zimmern, RL, Sanderson, S. Genetic tests and their evaluation: Can we answer the key questions? Genet Med. 2004;6:475–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Lehoux, P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
37. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;20:325–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. Lomas, J, Culyer, T, McCutcheon, C, McAuley, L, Law, S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. http://www.chsrf.ca/other_documents/evidence_e.php. 2005.Google Scholar
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. http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/contenidos/aetsa/pdf/Marco_pruebas_geneticas_eng_def.pdf. 2006.Google Scholar
42. McNally, E, Cambon-Thomsen, A, Brazell, C, et al. 25 Recommendations on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2004/genetic/pdf/recommendations_en.pdf. 2004.Google Scholar
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;11:69–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. MSAC. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/C1F4569D79E542FACA257161001F1389/$File/guidelines2.pdf. 2005.Google Scholar
45. National Screening Committee (NSC). First report of the National Screening Committee. NSC. www.library.nhs.uk/screening. 1998.Google Scholar
46. National Screening Committee (NSC). Second report of the UK National Screening Committee. NSC. www.library.nhs.uk/screening. 2000.Google Scholar
47. National Screening Committee (NSC). Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. NSC. www.library.nhs.uk/screening. 2003.Google Scholar
48. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic screening: A supplement to the 1993 report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Council. www.nuffieldbioethics.org. 2006.Google Scholar
49. Oortwijn, W, Reuzel, R, Decker, M. Introduction. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Reuzel, R. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Reuzel, R, Oortwijn, W, Decker, M, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Sacchini, D, Virdis, A, Refolo, P, Pennacchini, M, Carrasco de Paula, I. Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;7:495–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;147:871–875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf. 2008.Google Scholar
57. ten Have, H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:71–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
59. UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) steering group. Procedures and criteria for the evaluation of genetic tests for NHS Service (Gene Dossier). UKGTN. www.genetictestingnetwork.org.uk/gtn/. 2003.Google Scholar
60. Van Der Wilt, GJ, Reuzel, R, Banta, HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:103–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Wilson, JMG, Jungner, G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.Google ScholarPubMed