Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the mandate to examine the medical, ethical, and economic implications of the development and use of health technology, health technology assessment (HTA) reports often emphasize the epidemiologic and economic aspects, and omit ethical considerations. This study examines both whether and how ethical issues are incorporated into HTA. OBJECTIVES: We aim to (i) review a set of Canadian HTA reports for ethics content, (ii) describe the strategies used to incorporate ethically relevant information into HTA, and (iii) determine the presence of implicit ethical issues in a sample of HTA reports. METHODS: Descriptive and qualitative content analysis of 608 HTA reports produced by six Canadian HTA agencies from January 1997 to December 2006. RESULTS: We found that (i) a minority (17 percent) of Canadian HTA reports addressed ethical issues, (ii) secondary research predominates while primary analysis is rare, (iii) implicit ethical issues are present in HTA reports that do not purport to address ethics. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian HTA reports rarely explicitly, and then only superficially, address ethics, though implicit ethical issues abound.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".