Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29611623›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2018

Evaluating facts and facting evaluations: On the fact-value relationship in HTA.

Bjørn Hofmann, Ken Bond, Lars Sandman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Integrating ethical analysis in health technology assessment: opportunities and challenges.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  3. Ethical challenges for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in the evolving evidence landscape.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bjørn HofmannInstitute for the Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6709-4265
Ken BondCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada.
Lars SandmanNational Center for Priority Setting in Health-Care, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköpiing University, 58183, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0987-7653

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) is an evaluation of health technologies in terms of facts and evidence. However, the relationship between facts and values is still not clear in HTA. This is problematic in an era of "fake facts" and "truth production." Accordingly, the objective of this study is to clarify the relationship between facts and values in HTA. We start with the perspectives of the traditional positivist account of "evaluating facts" and the social-constructivist account of "facting values." Our analysis reveals diverse relationships between facts and a spectrum of values, ranging from basic human values, to the values of health professionals, and values of and in HTA, as well as for decision making. We argue for sensitivity to the relationship between facts and values on all levels of HTA, for being open and transparent about the values guiding the production of facts, and for a primacy for the values close to the principal goals of health care, ie, relieving suffering. We maintain that philosophy (in particular ethics) may have an important role in addressing the relationship between facts and values in HTA. Philosophy may help us to avoid fallacies of inferring values from facts; to disentangle the normative assumptions in the production or presentation of facts and to tease out implicit value judgements in HTA; to analyse evaluative argumentation relating to facts about technologies; to address conceptual issues of normative importance; and to promote reflection on HTA's own value system. In this we argue for a(n Aristotelian) middle way between the traditional positivist account of "evaluating facts" and the social-constructivist account of "facting values," which we call "factuation." We conclude that HTA is unique in bringing together facts and values and that being conscious and explicit about this "factuation" is key to making HTA valuable to both individual decision makers and society as a whole.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalBiomedical TechnologyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansKnowledgePhilosophy, Medicalconceptsepistemologyethicsevidencefactshealth technology assessment (HTA)philosophyvalues

Identifiers

PMID29611623
PMCPMC6175155

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.