Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639210›Full record

SynthesisScience and engineering ethics2022

Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations.

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Yvonne Denier, Evelyne Mertens, Chris Gastmans

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Science and engineering ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Tijs VandemeulebrouckeSustainable AI Lab, Institut Für Wissenschaft Und Ethik, University of Bonn, Bonner Talweg 57, 53113, Bonn, Germany. vandemeulebroucke@iwe.uni-bonn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5683-6067
Yvonne DenierFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Louvain-University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Evelyne MertensFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Louvain-University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Chris GastmansFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Louvain-University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innovations permeate healthcare settings on an ever-increasing scale. Health technology innovations (HTIs) impact our perceptions and experiences of health, care, disease, etc. Because of the fast pace these HTIs are being introduced in different healthcare settings, there is a growing societal consensus that these HTIs need to be governed by ethical reflection. This paper reports a systematic review of argument-based literature which focused on articles reporting on ethical frameworks to screen or evaluate HTIs. To do this a four step methodology was followed: (1) Literature search conducted in five electronic literature databases; (2) Identification of relevant articles; (3) Development of data-extraction tool to analyze the included articles; (4) Analysis, synthesis of data and reporting of results. Fifty-seven articles were included, each reporting on a specific ethical framework. These ethical frameworks existed out of characteristics which were grouped into five common ones: (1) Motivations for development and use of frameworks; (2) Objectives of using frameworks; (3) Specific characteristics of frameworks (background context, scope, and focus); (4) Ethical approaches and concepts used in the frameworks; (5) Methods to use the frameworks. Although this multiplicity of ethical frameworks shows an increasing importance of ethically analyzing HTIs, it remains unclear what the specific role is of these analyses. An ethics of caution, on which ethical frameworks rely, guides HTIs in their design, development, implementation, without questioning their technological paradigm. An ethics of desirability questions this paradigm, without guiding HTIs. In the end, a place needs to be found in-between, to critically assess HTIs.

Indexed as

MoralsResearchBiomedical TechnologyDelivery of Health CarePublicationsEthicsFrameworksHealthcareHealth technology innovationsSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.