PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11445880

Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium.

R P Reuzel·G J van der Wilt·H A ten Have·P F de Vries Robbé
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Interactive technology assessment (iTA) provides an answer to the ethical problem of normative bias in evaluation research. This normative bias develops when relevant perspectives on the evaluand (the thing being evaluated) are neglected. In iTA this bias is overcome by incorporating different perspectives into the assessment. As a consequence, justification of decisions based on the assessment is provided by stakeholders having achieved agreement. In this article, agreement is identified with wide reflective equilibrium to show that it indeed has the potential of justifying decisions. We work out several conditions for this agreement to be achievable and just.

Explore related subjects

ConsensusDecision MakingEthicsNetherlandsObserver VariationResearch DesignSocial JusticeSocial ValuesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHealth Care and Public HealthJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R P Reuzel, G J van der Wilt, H A ten Have, P F de Vries Robbé. 2001. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium.. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.26.3.245.3015

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗
PubMed2007

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗