Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28812788›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2017

The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".

Jens Byskov, Stephen Oswald Maluka, Bruno Marchal, Elizabeth H Shayo, Salome Bukachi, Oseph M Zulu, Erik Blas, Charles Michelo, Benedict Ndawi, Anna-Karin Hurtig

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Ethics in HTA: Examining the "Need for Expansion".International journal of health policy and management · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jens ByskovDepartment of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Stephen Oswald MalukaFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark.
Bruno MarchalInstitute of Development Studies, University of Dar Es Salaam, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Elizabeth H ShayoDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Salome BukachiNational Institute of Medical Research (NIMR), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Oseph M ZuluInstitute of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Erik BlasDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Charles MicheloInstitute of Anthropology, Gender and African Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Benedict NdawiInternational Public Health Consultant, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna-Karin HurtigPrimary Health Care Institute (PHCI), Iringa, Tanzania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accountability for reasonableness (AFR) concept has been developed and discussed for over two decades. Its interpretation has been studied in several ways partly guided by the specific settings and the researchers involved. This has again influenced the development of the concept, but not led to universal application. The potential use in health technology assessments (HTAs) has recently been identified by Daniels et al as yet another excellent justification for AFR-based process guidance that refers to both qualitative and a broader participatory input for HTA, but it has raised concerns from those who primarily support the consistency and objectivity of more quantitative and reproducible evidence. With reference to studies of AFR-based interventions and the through these repeatedly documented motivation for their consolidation, we argue that it can even be unethical not to take AFR conditions beyond their still mainly formative stage and test their application within routine health systems management for their expected support to more sustainable health improvements. The ever increasing evidence and technical expertise are necessary but at times contradictory and do not in isolation lead to optimally accountable, fair and sustainable solutions. Technical experts, politicians, managers, service providers, community members, and beneficiaries each have their own values, expertise and preferences, to be considered for necessary buy in and sustainability. Legitimacy, accountability and fairness do not come about without an inclusive and agreed process guidance that can reconcile differences of opinion and indeed differences in evidence to arrive at a by all understood, accepted, but not necessarily agreed compromise in a current context - until major premises for the decision change. AFR should be widely adopted in projects and services under close monitoring and frequent reviews.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHumansSocial ResponsibilityAccountabilityDemocratic DevelopmentFairnessHealth SystemsLegitimacySustainabilityValues

Identifiers

PMID28812788
PMCPMC5287928

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.