Literature DB >> 21664018

Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach.

Yvonne Bombard1, Julia Abelson, Dorina Simeonov, Francois-Pierre Gauvin.   

Abstract

Despite a growing consensus that ethical and social values should be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) processes, there exist a variety of methods for doing so. There is growing interest in involving citizens in policy development to ensure that decisions are legitimate, and reflect the broad social values of the public. We sought to bring these issues together by employing a participatory approach to elicit ethical and social values in HTA. Our primary objective was to elicit a set of ethical and social values from citizens that could be used to guide Ontario's HTA evidentiary review and appraisal process. A secondary objective was to explore the feasibility of using participatory approaches to elicit these values. A 14-person Citizens' Reference Panel on Health Technologies was established to provide input to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in developing its recommendations. A mixed methods approach was used where informed, deliberative discussions were combined with pre- and post-questionnaires, which assessed the relative importance of various ethical and social values as well as their stability over time. Over the course of five meetings, panel members progressed toward the identification of a set of core values -universal access, choice and quality care. These values were consistently prioritized as the core values that should be considered in the evaluation of health technologies and ensuing recommendations. Sustained and deliberative methods, like a citizens' panel, offer a promising approach for eliciting ethical and social values into HTA.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21664018     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.04.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  20 in total

Review 1.  Human Germline Genome Editing.

Authors:  Kelly E Ormond; Douglas P Mortlock; Derek T Scholes; Yvonne Bombard; Lawrence C Brody; W Andrew Faucett; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Laura Hercher; Rosario Isasi; Anna Middleton; Kiran Musunuru; Daniel Shriner; Alice Virani; Caroline E Young
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Why and when should we use public deliberation?

Authors:  Stephanie Solomon; Julia Abelson
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

Review 3.  Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review.

Authors:  Vadim Dukhanin; Alexandra Searle; Alice Zwerling; David W Dowdy; Holly A Taylor; Maria W Merritt
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Wessel Reijers; David Wright; Philip Brey; Karsten Weber; Rowena Rodrigues; Declan O'Sullivan; Bert Gordijn
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 5.  Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges.

Authors:  Ahmed Rashid; Victoria Thomas; Toni Shaw; Gillian Leng
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia.

Authors:  Edilene Lopes; Jackie Street; Drew Carter; Tracy Merlin
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: a qualitative public deliberation study.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Julia Abelson; Dorina Simeonov; Francois-Pierre Gauvin
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives.

Authors:  Diego S Silva; Jennifer L Gibson; Ann Robertson; Cécile M Bensimon; Sachin Sahni; Laena Maunula; Maxwell J Smith
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Ken Deal; Yvonne Bombard; Natasha Leighl; Karen V MacDonald; Maureen Trudeau
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review.

Authors:  Felix Gradinger; Nicky Britten; Katrina Wyatt; Katherine Froggatt; Andy Gibson; Ann Jacoby; Fiona Lobban; Debbie Mayes; Dee Snape; Tim Rawcliffe; Jennie Popay
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.