Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is where facts and values meet: the evidence that is considered relevant to the assessment of a technology depends on the value framework used. In the context of the European project VALIDATE (Values in doing assessments of healthcare technologies), we assessed to what extent this interplay between facts and values is acknowledged in HTA reports on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Our aim is to gain a better understanding of this fact-value relationship, and to contribute to the development of capacity for ethical analyses in HTA.

Five reviewers independently analyzed HTA reports on NIPT, obtained from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA database, by answering a structured questionnaire on: (i) arguments, values, and conclusions; (ii) relations between values and collected evidence; (iii) operationalizations of the values involved. Ethical argumentation was analyzed using the method of specifying norms. This method holds that for general, abstract ethical principles to reach concrete cases, principles need to be specified in such a way as to achieve maximal coherence between different value commitments and practice. The results of the analysis were discussed in joint meetings to arrive at a consensus on interpretation.

Our results show that the pivotal role of values in defining what counts as relevant evidence and why, is rarely acknowledged. The same holds for the importance of specifying values as a means to achieve greater coherence between the use of healthcare technologies and a range of values.

There is ample room for improvement in clarifying the role of values in HTA: they can serve to explain and justify what evidence is considered relevant to the assessment of a healthcare technology. Recognizing that abstract values need specification in order to reach concrete cases opens up new opportunities for exploring in what way values are affected by healthcare technologies.