Cargando…

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"

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 impo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: DiStefano, Michael J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125053/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579447
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7480
_version_ 1785029953731952640
author DiStefano, Michael J.
author_facet DiStefano, Michael J.
author_sort DiStefano, Michael J.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10125053
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Kerman University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101250532023-04-25 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" DiStefano, Michael J. Int J Health Policy Manag Commentary 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. Kerman University of Medical Sciences 2022-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10125053/ /pubmed/37579447 http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7480 Text en © 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
DiStefano, Michael J.
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"
title 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"
title_full 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"
title_fullStr 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"
title_full_unstemmed 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"
title_short 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"
title_sort 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"
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10125053/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37579447
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7480
work_keys_str_mv AT distefanomichaelj moralandsocialvaluesinevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesigncommentonevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesignpartiiapracticalguide