Skip to main content

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

Health Care Analysis volume 29, pages 1–20 (2021)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. We included Cochrane library to be comprehensive, in the case that some citations were not yet available through Pubmed.

References

  1. Abbasi, M., Majdzadeh, R., Zali, A., Karimi, A., & Akrami, F. (2018). The evolution of public health ethics frameworks: Systematic review of moral values and norms in public health policy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9813-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AGREE Collaboration. (2003). Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 12, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AGREE II Next Steps Consortium. (2017). The AGREE II Instrument (p. 57). http://www.agreetrust.org.

  4. Ansell, C., & Geyer, R. (2017). ‘Pragmatic complexity’ a new foundation for moving beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’? Policy Studies, 38(2), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1219033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baum, N., Gollust, S., Goold, S., & Jacobson, P. (2007). Looking ahead: Addressing ethical challenges in public health. Journal of Law, Ethics, and Policy, Symposium, 35, 657–667.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Behrmann, J. (2012). Ethics in health policy for allergy: A practical approach for decision-makers. Montreal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellefleur, O., & Keeling, M. (2018). How can we (and why should we) analyze the ethics of paternalistic policies in public health?. Montreal, QC: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bernheim, R. G., Nieburg, P., & Bonnie, R. J. (2007). Ethics and the practice of public health. In R. A. Goodman (Ed.), Law in Public Health Practice (pp. 110–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? The Policy Press, 1, 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cheung, K. K., Mirzaei, M., & Leeder, S. (2010). Health policy analysis: A tool to evaluate in policy documents the alignment between policy statements and intended outcomes. Australian Health Review, 34(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Childress, J. F., & Bernheim, R. G. (2008). Public health ethics Public justification and public trust. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 51(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-008-0444-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, B. E., Ateah, C. A., Chartier M. J., Anderson DeCoteau M., Harris E., & Serwonka K. (2016). Report of an equity-focused health impact assessment of a proposed universal parenting program in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 107(1), e112–e118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daniels, N., Bryant, J., Castano, R., Dantes, O., Khan, K., & Pannarunthai, S. (2000). Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform: A policy tool for developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(6), 740–750.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson, A. (2011). Resetting the parameters. In A. Dawson (Ed.), Public health ethics (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Donnelly, C., Boyd, I., Campbell, P., Craig, C., Vallance, P., Walport, M., et al. (2018). Four principles for evidence in policy making. Nature, 558, 361–363.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein, R. M., Fiscella, K., Lesser, C. S., & Stange, K. C. (2010). Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Affairs (Millwood), 29(8), 1489–1495. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frolic, A., Drolet, K., Bryanton, K., Caron, C., Cupido, C., Flaherty, B., et al. (2012). Opening the black box of ethics policy work: Evaluating a covert practice. American Journal of Bioethics, 12(11), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2012.719263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frolic, A. N., Drolet, K., & HHS Policy Working Group. (2013). Ethics policy review: A case study in quality improvement. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Funk, M., & Freeman, M. (2011). Framework and methodology for evaluating mental health policy and plans. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 26(2), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giacomini, M., Kenny, N., & DeJean, D. (2009). Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing? Health Policy, 89(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.04.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2014). Qualitative methods for health research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hamilton Health Sciences Clinical Ethics Committee on Policy Working Group. (2009). ISSUES: Guideline for ethics policy review. ON: Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Have, M., Beaufort, I. D., Mackenbach, J. P., & van der Heide, A. (2010). An overview of ethical frameworks in public health: Can they be supportive in the evaluation of programs to prevent overweight? BMC Public Health, 10(638), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haynes, E., Palermo, C., & Reidlinger, D. P. (2016). Modified Policy-Delphi study for exploring obesity prevention priorities. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011788. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jamal, S. M., Yu, J. H., Chong, J. X., Dent, K. M., Conta, J. H., Tabor, H. K., et al. (2013). Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: Analysis and implications. The American Journal of Medical Genetics, 161A(5), 935–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4833.2013.35942.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jiwani, B. (2015). Ethically justified decisions. Reflections on Healthcare Leadership Ethics, 28(2), 86–89.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kaldjian, L. C. (2014). Communicating moral reasoning in medicine as an expression of respect for patients and integrity among professionals. Communication and Medicine, 10(2), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v10i2.177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kass, N. (2001). An ethics framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1776–1782.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kenny, N., & Giacomini, M. (2005). Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Analysis, 13(4), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-005-8123-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kenny, N., Melnychuk, R., & Asada, Y. (2006). The promise of public health: Ethical reflections. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 402–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Little, M. (2000). Conflict of interests, vested interests and health research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(4), 413–420.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marckmann, G., Schmidt, H., Sofaer, N., & Strech, D. (2015). Putting public health ethics into practice: A systematic framework. Front Public Health, 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McDonald, F., Simpson, C., & O’Brien, F. (2008). Including organizational ethics in policy review processes in healthcare institutions: A view from Canada. HEC Forum, 20(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-008-9067-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Montgomery, J. (2016). Bioethics as a governance practice. Health Care Analysis, 24(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Montori, V. M., Brito, J. P., & Murad, M. H. (2013). The optimal practice of evidence-based medicine: Incorporating patient preferences in practice guidelines. JAMA, 310(23), 2503–2504. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281422.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nova Scotia Health Ethics Network. (2016). Ethics and health policy: The nuts and bolts. Nova Scotia: Nova Scotia Health Ethics Network.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2014). An ethical framework. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Walton, M., & Mengwasser, E. (2012). An ethical evaluation of evidence: A stewardship approach to public health policy. Public Health Ethics, 5(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phr037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognize two librarians, Genevieve Gore and Mary Hague-Yearl, for their assistance in editing the search strategy. This work was supported by a Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Graduate Scholarship awarded to Mary Henein. CIHR had no involvement in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report or decision to submit this work for publication.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada

    Mary Henein & Carolyn Ells

  2. Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada

    Carolyn Ells

  3. Department of Medicine, McGill University, 1001 Decarie Boulevard, Montreal, QC, H4A3J1, Canada

    Carolyn Ells

Authors
  1. Mary Henein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolyn Ells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Henein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henein, M., Ells, C. Identifying and Classifying Tools for Health Policy Ethics Review: A Systematic Search and Review. Health Care Anal 29, 1–20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00422-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-020-00422-w

Keywords

  • Ethical review
  • Healthcare policy ethics
  • Public health ethics framework