Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27004792›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Ethical analysis in HTA of complex health interventions.

Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Wija Oortwijn, Gert Jan van der Wilt, Pietro Refolo, Dario Sacchini, Kati Mozygemba, Ansgar Gerhardus, Louise Brereton, Bjørn Hofmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Ethics domains in full health technology assessment reports: an attempt to begin mapping the field.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  14. HTA for pharmaceuticals in Europe: will the mountain deliver a mouse?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Bioethics: a challenge and an opportunity for hospital pharmacists.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kristin Bakke LysdahlCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. kristin.bakke-lysdahl@hioa.no.
Wija OortwijnECORYS Netherlands BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gert Jan van der WiltDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Pietro RefoloInstitute of Bioethics, "A. Gemelli" School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Dario SacchiniInstitute of Bioethics, "A. Gemelli" School of Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Kati MozygembaDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Ansgar GerhardusDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Louise BreretonScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Bjørn HofmannCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the field of health technology assessment (HTA), there are several approaches that can be used for ethical analysis. However, there is a scarcity of literature that critically evaluates and compares the strength and weaknesses of these approaches when they are applied in practice. In this paper, we analyse the applicability of some selected approaches for addressing ethical issues in HTA in the field of complex health interventions. Complex health interventions have been the focus of methodological attention in HTA. However, the potential methodological challenges for ethical analysis are as yet unknown.

methodsSix of the most frequently described and applied ethical approaches in HTA were critically assessed against a set of five characteristics of complex health interventions: multiple and changing perspectives, indeterminate phenomena, uncertain causality, unpredictable outcomes, and ethical complexity. The assessments are based on literature and the authors' experiences of developing, applying and assessing the approaches.

resultsThe Interactive, participatory HTA approach is by its nature and flexibility, applicable across most complexity characteristics. Wide Reflective Equilibrium is also flexible and its openness to different perspectives makes it better suited for complex health interventions than more rigid conventional approaches, such as Principlism and Casuistry. Approaches developed for HTA purposes are fairly applicable for complex health interventions, which one could expect because they include various ethical perspectives, such as the HTA Core Model® and the Socratic approach.

conclusionThis study shows how the applicability for addressing ethical issues in HTA of complex health interventions differs between the selected ethical approaches. Knowledge about these differences may be helpful when choosing and applying an approach for ethical analyses in HTA. We believe that the study contributes to increasing awareness and interest of the ethical aspects of complex health interventions in general.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalEthical AnalysisHumansTechnology Assessment, Biomedicalbioethicscomplex health interventionHealth technology assessment

Identifiers

PMID27004792
PMCPMC4804607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.