↓ Skip to main content

Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0118-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nazila Assasi, Jean-Eric Tarride, Daria O’Reilly, Lisa Schwartz

Abstract

While evaluation of ethical aspects in health technology assessment (HTA) has gained much attention during the past years, the integration of ethics in HTA practice still presents many challenges. In response to the increasing demand for expansion of health technology assessment (HTA) methodology to include ethical issues more systematically, this article reports on a multi-stage study that aimed at construction of a framework for improving the integration of ethics in HTA. The framework was developed through the following phases: 1) a systematic review and content analysis of guidance documents for ethics in HTA; 2) identification of factors influencing the integration of ethical considerations in HTA; 3) preparation of an action-oriented framework based on the key elements of the existing guidance documents and identified barriers to and facilitators of their implementation; and 4) expert consultation and revision of the framework. The proposed framework consists of three main components: an algorithmic flowchart, which exhibits the different steps of an ethical inquiry throughout the HTA process, including: defining the objectives and scope of the evaluation, stakeholder analysis, assessing organizational capacity, framing ethical evaluation questions, ethical analysis, deliberation, and knowledge translation; a stepwise guide, which focuses on the task objectives and potential questions that are required to be addressed at each step; and a list of some commonly recommended or used tools to help facilitate the evaluation process. The proposed framework can be used to support and promote good practice in integration of ethics into HTA. However, further validation of the framework through case studies and expert consultation is required to establish its utility for HTA practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 5 5%
Professor 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 33 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,998,963
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#329
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,556
of 342,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.