Ethical analysis in HTA of complex health interventions

Background: In 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. Methods: Six 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: This 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

Why is it so difficult to integrate ethics in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)? The epistemological viewpoint

Ethics has been identified as a key element in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) since its conception. However, ethical issues are still not frequently addressed explicitly in HTA. Several valuable reasons have been identified. The basis of the article is the claim that ethics is often not part of HTA for “epistemological reasons”. Hence, the main aim of the contribution is to explore in more details and emphasize them by using the fact/value dichotomy. Our conclusion is that current HTA configuration is dominantly based on the comparison among objective and empirically testable “facts”, whilst ethics is not empirically testable. In this sense, there is a sort of “epistemological gap”, which can explain why it is so difficult to integrate ethics in HTA. We suggest that the epistemological differences among the various domains of HTA are addressed more explicitly

Molecular medicine and concepts of disease: the ethical value of a conceptual analysis of emerging biomedical technologies

Although it is now generally acknowledged that new biomedical technologies often produce new definitions and sometimes even new concepts of disease, this observation is rarely used in research that anticipates potential ethical issues in emerging technologies. This article argues that it is useful to start with an analysis of implied concepts of disease when anticipating ethical issues of biomedical technologies. It shows, moreover, that it is possible to do so at an early stage, i.e. when a technology is only just emerging. The specific case analysed here is that of ‘molecular medicine’. This group of emerging technologies combines a ‘cascade model’ of disease processes with a ‘personal pattern’ model of bodily functioning. Whereas the ethical implications of the first are partly familiar from earlier—albeit controversial—forms of preventive and predictive medicine, those of the second are quite novel and potentially far-reaching

Guidance on the integrated assessment of complex health technologies: the INTEGRATE-HTA model

Challenges in assessments of health technologies In recent years there have been major advances in the development of health technology assessment (HTA). However, HTA still has certain limitations when assessing technologies which are complex, i.e. consist of several interacting components, target different groups or organizational levels, have multiple and variable outcomes, and/or permit a certain degree of flexibility or tailoring (Craig et al., 2008), fi are context-dependent - current HTA usually focusses on the technology, not on the system within which it is used, fi perform differently depending on the way they are implemented, fi have different effects on different individuals. Furthermore, HTA usually assesses and appraises aspects side-by-side, while decision-making needs an integrated perspective on the value of a technology. In the EU-funded INTEGRATE-HTA project, we developed concepts and methods to deal with these challenges, which are described in six guidances. Because of the interactions, an integrated assessment needs to start from the beginning of the assessment. This guidance provides a systematic five-step-process for an integrated assessment of complex technologies (the INTEGRATE-HTA Model). Purpose and scope of the guidance The aim of the INTEGRATE-HTA project is to provide concepts and methods that enable a patient-centred, comprehensive, and integrated assessment of complex health technologies. The purpose of this guidance is to structure the overall HTA-process. The INTEGRATE-HTA Model outlines an integrated scoping process, a coordinated application of assessment methods for different aspects and an integrated and structured decision-making process. It is intended for HTA agencies, HTA researchers and those engaged in the evaluation of complex health technologies. As it links the assessment to the decision-making process, it also addresses HTA commissioners and other stakeholders using or planning HTAs. While all technologies are arguably complex, some are more complex than others. Applying this guidance might lead to a more thorough and therefore more time-consuming process. Depending on the degree of complexity, one might choose to follow the whole process as described in this guidance, or only focus on certain steps. The guidance provides an operational definition to assess the complexity of technologies which can be used to identify specific aspects that will need more attention than others. What the guidance does not provide is a post-hoc solution for assessments that have already been completed. | 6 Development of the guidance The INTEGRATE-HTA Model presented in this guidance was developed based on a systematic literature search on approaches for integration, on the experiences of traditional HTAs, as well as on the other methodological guidances developed in the INTEGRATE-HTA project. It was tested in a case study on palliative care and iteratively revised during the practical application. The guidance was again revised after internal and external peer-review. Application of this guidance For a comprehensive integrated assessment of a complex technology, we developed a five-step process, the INTEGRATE-HTA model. In Step 1, the HTA objective and the technology are defined with the support from a panel of stakeholders. An initial logic model is developed in Step 2. The initial logic model provides a structured overview of the technology, the context, implementation issues, and relevant patient groups. It then frames the assessment of the effectiveness, as well as economic, ethical, legal, and socio-cultural aspects in Step 3. In Step 4, a graphical overview of the assessment results, structured by the logic model, is provided. Step 5 is a structured decision-making process informed by the HTA (and is thus not formally part of the HTA, but follows it). fi Step 1: In step 1, the technology under assessment and the objective of the HTA are defined. Especially for complex technologies, such as palliative care, the definition of the technology alone is a challenge that must not be underestimated. It is recommended to do this based on a tentative literature review and with the support of stakeholder advisory panels (SAPs) which should comprise clinical experts, academics, patients, possibly their relatives and/or other caretakers, and the public. The setting of an objective considering all relevant aspects of complexity and structured by assessment criteria is important. The assessment criteria will usually reflect values of the stakeholders as well as the input from the theoretical, methodological and empirical literature. fi Step 2: In step 2, an initial logic model is developed (see Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions). The model provides a structured overview on participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Parallel to this, groups of patients that are distinguished by different preferences and treatment moderators (see Guidance for the assessment of treatment moderation and patients’ preferences) are identified. Specific context and implementation issues are also identified as part of the initial logic model (see Guidance for the Assessment of Context and Implementation in Health Technology Assessments (HTA) and Systematic Reviews of Complex Interventions). The product of this step is the logic model as a graphical representation of all aspects and their interactions that are relevant for the assessment of the complex technology. fi Step 3: In step 3, the logic model serves as a conceptual framework that guides the evidence assessment. Depending on the specific aspect (e.g. effectiveness, economic, ethical, socio-cultural, or legal aspects) different methods are available for the assessment (see Guidance for assessing effectiveness, economic aspects, ethical aspects, socio-cultural aspects and legal aspects in complex technologies). The outputs of step 3 are evidence reports and standardized evidence summaries for each assessment aspect (e.g. report on economics, report on ethical aspects, etc.). fi Step 4: In step 4, the assessment results of step 3 are structured using the logic model developed in step 2. Whereas the initial logic model in step 2 specifies what evidence is relevant, the extended logic model to assist decision-making in step 4 visualizes the assessment results as well as the interaction with respect to the HTA objectives. It also allows for the consideration of different scenarios depending on the variation in context, implementation and patient characteristics. 7 | fi Step 5: Step 5 involves a structured decision-making process and is not an integral part of the HTA in the narrow sense. Decision-making can be supported by applying quantitative e.g. MCDA- (Multi-criteria decision analysis) or qualitative decision support tools. Flexibility in the application of these tools by the decision committee is crucial, taking different decision settings and evidence needs into consideration. Conclusions In current HTA, different aspects are usually assessed and presented independent of each other. Context, implementation issues and patient characteristics are rarely considered. The INTEGRATE-HTA Model enables a coordinated assessment of all these aspects and addresses their interdependencies. The perspective of stakeholders such as patients and professionals with their values and preferences is integrated in the INTEGRATE-HTA Model to obtain HTA results that are meaningful for all relevant stakeholders. Finally, health policy makers obtain an integrated perspective of the assessment results to achieve fair and legitimate conclusions at the end of the HTA process. The application of the model will usually require more time and resources than traditional HTA. An initial assessment of the degree and the character of complexity of a technology might be helpful to decide whether or not the whole process or only specific elements will be applied

Thank You to Our 2020 Peer Reviewers

Thank you to the reviewers of AGU Advances. In 2020, we all faced the enormous and unexpected challenges of the Covid‐19 pandemic, with its host of new and competing demands on our time. Thus, we are especially grateful to the 154 people who provided reviews for AGU Advances and helped our fledgling journal complete its first year. Peer‐review is essential to the process of doing and publishing science, and our reviewers have helped define our new journal by indicating papers expected to have broad impact that advance a discipline, have broad impact across disciplines, or have policy relevance. All papers submitted to AGU Advances first go through an editorial consultation. We are committed to respecting reviewers’ time and only send papers for review that the consulting editors agree meet our criteria. Sometimes this means we send papers back to the authors with suggestions how to improve the fit to our journal. Another way we try to streamline the review process is by giving the authors the option to transfer reviews if after review we decide the paper is better suited to another AGU journal. As a relatively new journal, we still have few enough reviewers that we do not want to identify them by name. Nonetheless, you know who you are. Please accept our sincere thanks for generously sharing your expertise and working to improve AGU Advances

Confronting Racism to Advance Our Science

As individuals serving on the AGU Advances editorial board, we condemn racism, affirm that Black Lives Matter, and recognize that inequality is built into the systems that have allowed us to prosper. We aim to persistently foster discussion about racism, inequity, and the need to make our community more diverse and inclusive. This will help AGU Advances do a better job in publishing important science that inclusively reflects the ideas and contributions of all in our community

Influence of sex hormones on the periodontium

Objectives : Sex hormones have long been considered to play an influential role on periodontal tissues, bone turnover rate, wound healing and periodontal disease progression. The objectives of this review article are to (1) address the link between sex hormones and the periodontium, (2) analyse how these hormones influence the periodontium at different life times and (3) discuss the effects of hormone supplements/replacement on the periodontium. Materials and Methods : Two autonomous searches were performed in English language utilizing Medline, Premedline and Pubmed as the online databases. Publications up to 2002 were selected and further reviewed. In addition, a manual search was also performed including specific related journals and books. Results : It is certain that sexual hormones play a key role in periodontal disease progression and wound healing. More specifically, these effects seem to differentiate by gender as well as lifetime period. In addition, the influence of sex hormones can be minimized with good plaque control and with hormone replacement. Conclusion : Despite profound research linking periodontal condition with sex hormones kinetics, more definitive molecular mechanisms and therapy still remain to be determined.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75598/1/j.1600-051X.2003.00055.x.pd

Влияние фосфатных связующих на физико-механические свойства периклазохромитовых огнеупоров

У данній статті наведено та порівняно фізико-механічні властивості периклазо-хромітових матеріалів в залежності від різних типів фосфатних зв’язуючих та введення різних домішок. Визначено, що найбільш раціональним є введення триполіфосфату натрію.In given clause are resulted and the physycal-mechanical properties periclase-cgromite of materials are compared depending on different of types phosphate binding and introduction of the various additives. Is determined, that most rational is the introduction treepolyphosphate sodume

Why We Dont Need "Unmet Needs"! On the Concepts of Unmet Need and Severity in Health-Care Priority Setting

In health care priority setting different criteria are used to reflect the relevant values that should guide decision-making. During recent years there has been a development of value frameworks implying the use of multiple criteria, a development that has not been accompanied by a structured conceptual and normative analysis of how different criteria relate to each other and to underlying normative considerations. Examples of such criteria are unmet need and severity. In this article these crucial criteria are conceptually clarified and analyzed in relation to each other. We argue that disease-severity and condition-severity should be distinguished and we find the latter concept better reflects underlying normative values. We further argue that unmet need does not fulfil an independent and relevant role in relation to condition-severity except for in some limited situations when having to distinguish between conditions of equal severity (and where other features also equals each other)