Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review

Overview

Journal Health Care Anal

Specialties Health Services
Public Health

Date 2021 Jan 2

PMID 33386534

Authors

Mary Henein

Carolyn Ells

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Ethical review and analysis of health policy may help to ensure policies address the needs of society and align with relevant values and principles. Indeed, researchers and bioethicists have recognized the need for ethical frameworks specifically for public health applications. The objective of this research was to compile structured tools for ethical review of (drafted or existing) health policy and to analyze these tools for their scope and philosophical underpinnings. A systematic search and review of academic and grey literature was conducted to compile existing tools designed for health policy ethics review. The search yielded 13 health policy ethical review tools. Qualitative content analysis revealed that all of the tools were influenced by multiple ethical values and that a majority were influenced by more than one ethical theory. The most common values were non-maleficence and beneficence (92.3%). The most common influencing ethical theory was the Principles Approach (92.3%). The structure of the tools demonstrates a heterogeneity of methodology designs to approach policy ethics review. This research offers a unique contribution to the bioethics field that provides a useful resource and understanding of the current ethical review tools for health policy.

References

Cheung K, Mirzaei M, Leeder S . Health policy analysis: a tool to evaluate in policy documents the alignment between policy statements and intended outcomes. Aust Health Rev. 2010; 34(4):405-13. DOI: 10.1071/AH09767. View

Childress J, Bernheim R . Public health ethics. Public justification and public trust. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008; 51(2):158-63. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-008-0444-6. View

Daniels N, Bryant J, Castano R, Dantes O, Khan K, Pannarunothai S . Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform: a policy tool for developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2000; 78(6):740-50. PMC: 2560780. View

Frolic A, Drolet K . Ethics policy review: a case study in quality improvement. J Med Ethics. 2012; 39(2):98-103. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100461. View

Giacomini M, Kenny N, DeJean D . Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?. Health Policy. 2008; 89(1):58-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.04.010. View

Hsieh H, Shannon S . Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9):1277-88. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687. View

Jamal S, Yu J, Chong J, Dent K, Conta J, Tabor H . Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications. Am J Med Genet A. 2013; 161A(5):935-50. PMC: 3708985. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35942. View

Kenny N, Giacomini M . Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal. 2006; 13(4):247-60. DOI: 10.1007/s10728-005-8123-3. View

McDonald F, Simpson C, OBrien F . Including organizational ethics in policy review processes in healthcare institutions: a view from Canada. HEC Forum. 2008; 20(2):137-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10730-008-9067-4. View

10.

Montgomery J . Bioethics as a Governance Practice. Health Care Anal. 2016; 24(1):3-23. PMC: 4754320. DOI: 10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2. View

11.

Montori V, Brito J, Murad M . The optimal practice of evidence-based medicine: incorporating patient preferences in practice guidelines. JAMA. 2013; 310(23):2503-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281422. View

12.

Parker L . Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers. Health Policy. 2017; 121(7):793-799. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.002. View