Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2023:12:7480.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7480. Epub 2022 Dec 28.

Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Affiliations
Comment

Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Michael J DiStefano. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.

Abstract

An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as "a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values." In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.

Keywords: Accountability for Reasonableness; Deliberation; Ethics; Health Technology Assessment; Legitimacy; Value Judgments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author declares that he has no competing interests.

Comment on

References

    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design - part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hofmann B, Bond K, Sandman L. Evaluating facts and facting evaluations: on the fact-value relationship in HTA. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(5):957–965. doi: 10.1111/jep.12920. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):293–316. doi: 10.1108/14777261211238954. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whitty JA, Littlejohns P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2015;119(2):127–136. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):141–150. doi: 10.1017/s0266462309090199. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources