The Leuven Ethical Question Framework: A Guide for Evaluating Health Technology Innovations

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke; Yvonne Denier; Alice Cavolo; Chris Gastmans

doi:10.55613/jeet.v36i2.226

Authors

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke Independent researcher
Yvonne Denier Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven
Alice Cavolo Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3921-0617
Chris Gastmans Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v36i2.226

Abstract

Due to current digitalization and automation processes, health technology innovations (HTIs) are entering healthcare settings at an accelerating pace. As all medical advancements, HTIs have a double nature that could either benefit or harm. Hence, how do we ensure an ethical assessment of HTIs? Many frameworks to ethically evaluate HTIs already exist, but few are developed and reported in a transparent and systematic way, and most rely either solely on theoretical or empirical data. This paper reports on the development and content of the Leuven Ethical Question (LEQ) Framework, a new tool for evaluating HTI impacts. The methodology used to develop the LEQ Framework consisted of deepening the results of a previously carried out systematic review of frameworks to ethically assess or evaluate HTI. These results were fleshed out in an iterative manner by multiple stakeholder meetings and expert consultations thus integrating the patient, healthcare professional, technology professional, and the health policy perspective within the framework. The LEQ Framework is a question matrix covering three stages in the HTI lifecycle: design, development, and use. These stages are analyzed from four contexts of ethical evaluation: global, societal, organizational, and individual-relational. Finally, the LEQ Framework contains a section of challenges which need to be considered throughout the entire HTI lifecycle. The Framework is preferably used in a deliberative setting and for stimulating ethical awareness of and reflection on the multiple impacts of HTIs. The LEQ Framework attempts to cover all dimensions of HTI and the contexts of its impacts from an ethical perspective. It aims to be comprehensive in its evaluation of ethical aspects of HTIs and to be practical for different stakeholders. Moreover, by using the LEQ Framework, HTIs are recognized as not only individual and local healthcare developments, but also developments that need to be perceived in ever enlarging societal and global contexts

Author Biographies

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Independent researcher

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke holds a Master’s Degree in Theology and Religious Studies (KU Leuven) and Philosophy (KU Leuven). He obtained a Doctoral Degree in Biomedical Sciences (KU Leuven) with a study on the ethics of socially assistive robots in aged care practices.
Yvonne Denier, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven

Yvonne Denier obtained a Doctoral Degree in Philosophy (KU Leuven) with a study on justice in health care. She is an Associate Professor of Health Care Ethics at the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law (KU Leuven).
Alice Cavolo, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven

Alice Cavolo holds a master degree in philosophy (University of Trento) and a doctoral degree in biomedical sciences (KU Leuven) with a study on the ethics of (non)resuscitation decisions for extremely preterm infants.
Chris Gastmans, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven

Chris Gastmans obtained a Doctoral Degree in Theology (KU Leuven). He is Full Professor of Medical Ethics in the Faculty of Medicine (KU Leuven) and he is the head of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law.

References

1. Aicardi, C., Fothergill, B. T., Rainey, S., Stahl, B. C. & Harris, E. (2018). Accompanying technology development in the Human Brain Project: from foresight to ethics management. Futures 102, 114-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.005.

2. Andersson H, Svensson A, Frank C, Rantala A, Holmberg M, Bremer A. Ethics education to support ethical compe-tence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Mar 19;23(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00766-z.

3. Assasi, N., Schwartz, L., Tarride, J.-E., Campbell, K. & Goeree, R. (2014). Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Review of Phar-macoeconomics & Outcomes Research 14(2), 203-220. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2014.894464.

4. Assasi, N., Schwartz, L., Tarride, J.-E., O’Reilly, D. & Goeree, R. (2015). Barriers and facilitators influencing ethical evaluation in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 31(3), 113-123. DOI: 10.1017/S026646231500032X.

5. Autti-Rämö, I. & Mäkelä, M. (2007). Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic ap-proach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in health Care 23(1), 1-8. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307051501.

6. Bellemare, C. A., Dagenais, P., Suzanne, K., Béland, J. P., Bernier, L., Daniel, C.-É, Gagnon, H., Legault, G. A., Parent, M. & Patenaude, J. (2018). Ethics in health technology assessment: A systematic review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34(5), 447-457. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462318000508.

7. Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford & New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

8. Boers, S. N., van Delden, J. J. M. & Bredenoord, A. L. (2019). Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the ex-change of human tissues. Journal of medical Ethics 45, 131-139. DOI: 10. 1136/medethics-2018-104846.

9. Bond, K. & Weeks, L. (2017). Using the INTEGRATE-HTA guidance: Experience from CADTH. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33(5), 591-596. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462317000940.

10. Burls, A., Caron, L., Cleret de Langavant, G., Dondorp, W., Harstall, C., Pathak-Sen, E. & Hofmann, B. (2017). Tack-ling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. International Journal of technology Assessment in Health Care 27(3), 230-237. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000250.

11. Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Prac-tice 13, 181-190. DOI: 10.1007/s10677-009-9186-2.

12. Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Care robots and the future of ICT-mediated elderly care: A response to doom scenarios. AI & Society 31(4), 455-462. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-015-0626-3.

13. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

14. Daniels, N. & Sabin, J. (2002). Setting limits fairly. Can we learn to share medical resources? Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

15. Daniels, N. & van der Wilt, G. J. (2016). Health technology assessment, deliberative processes, and ethically con-tested issues. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 32(1), 10-15. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462316000155.

16. Demiris, G., Parker Oliver, D. & Courtney, K. L. (2006). Ethical consideration for the utilization of telehealth tech-nologies in home and hospice care by the nursing profession. Nursing Administration Quarterly 30(1), 56-66. DOI: 10.1097/00006216-200601000-00009.

17. Denecke, K. (2017). An ethical assessment model for digital disease detection technologies. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13(1), 16. DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0062-x.

18. Dierckx de Casterlé, B., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., & Denier, Y. (2012). QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative data analy-sis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49, 360–371. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnustu.2011.09.012.

19. Di Pietro, M. L., Teleman, A. A., Gonzalez-Melado, F. J., Zace, D., Di Raimo, F. R., Lucidi, V. & Refolo, P. (2018). Implementing carrier screening for cystic fibrosis outside the clinic: Ethical analysis in the light of the personalist view. La Clinical Terapeutica 169(2), e71-e76. DOI: 10.7417/T.2018.2057.

20. Ebbesen, M. & Jensen, T. G. (2006). Nanomedicine: Techniques, potentials, and ethical implications. Journal of Bio-medicine and Biotechnology. DOI: 10.1155/JBB/2006/51516.

21. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmo-nised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.

22. Feenberg, A. (2017). Technosystem. The social life of reason. Cambridge MA, London: Harvard University Press.

23. Fothergill, B. T., Knight, W. Stahl, B. C. & Ulnicane, E. (2019). Responsible date governance of neuroscience big data. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 13. DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2019.00028.

24. Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3(6), 16-23. DOI: 10.1145/242485.242493.

25. Gauvin, F.P., Abelson J., Giacomini, M., Eyles, J. & Lavis, J.N. (2010). "It all depends": conceptualizing public in-volvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Social Science & Medicine 70(10), 1518-1526. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036.

26. Gibson, G. L., Martin, D. K., & Singer, P. A. (2002). Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A transdisci-plinary study. BMC Health Services Research 2(1), 14. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-2-14.

27. Goetghebeur, M. M. & Cellier, M. S. (2018). Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare deci-sion-making? The EVIDEM journey. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 16(Suppl 1), 54. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9.

28. Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I. (2012). Personalised health care, the need for reassessment: A HTA perspective far beyond cost-effectiveness. Italian Journal of Public Health 9(4), e8653. DOI: 10.2427/8653.

29. Health Care Without Harm & Arup (2019). Health care’s climate footprint. How the health sector contributes to the global climate crisis and opportunities for action. https://global.noharm.org/media/4370/download?inline=1 (Accessed on 3 December 2024).

30. Heintz, E., Lintamo, L., Hultcrantz, M., Jacobson, S., Levi, R., Munthe, C., Tranaeus, S., Östlund, P. & Sandman, L. (2015). Framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of healthcare technologies: The SBU Approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 31(3), 124-130. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000264.

31. Hofmann, B. (2005). Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Interna-tional Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 21(3), 312-318. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462305050415.

32. Hofmann, B. (2008). Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technol-ogy Assessment in Health Care 24(4), 423-429. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080550.

33. Hofmann B. (2013). Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Science and Engineering Ethics 19(2), 389-406. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9348-1.

34. Hofmann, B., Droste, S., Oortwijn, W., Cleemput, I. & Sacchini, D. (2014). Harmonization of ethics in health tech-nology assessment: A revision of the socratic approach. International Journal of Technology in Health Care 30(1), 3-9. DOI:10.1017/S0266462313000688.

35. Howard, H. C., Swinnen, E., Douw, K., Vondeling, H., Cassiman, J.-J., Cambon-Thomsen, A. & Borry, P. (2013). The ethical introduction of genome-based information and technologies into public health. Public Health Genomics 16(3), 100-109. DOI: 10.1159/000346474.

36. Howes J., Denier Y., Vandemeulebroucke T., Gastmans C. Beyond the Surface: Identifying Ethical Blind Spots in the Development of Locator Devices for Dementia Care. Science and Engineering Ethics 2026. [ACCEPTED]

37. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana Universi-ty Press.

38. Kiran, A. (2015). Four dimensions of technological mediation. In R., Rosenberger, P.-P., Verbeek (eds.). Postphe-nomenological investigations. Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 123-140). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

39. Kosta, E., Pitkänen, O., Niemelä, M. & Kaasinen, E. (2010). Mobile-centric ambient intelligence in health- and homecare – anticipating ethical and legal challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 16(2), 303-323. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-009-9150-5.

40. Lefebvre, E. et al. (2011). E-waste in the healthcare sector: A growing international problem. International Journal of Arts & Sciences 4(26), 21-32.

41. Lehoux, P. & Blume, S. (2000). Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 25(6),1083-112. DOI: 10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083.

42. Lemmens, P. (2017). Social autonomy and heteronomy in the age of ICT: the digital pharmakon and the (disem-powerment) of the general intellect. Foundations of Science 22(2), 287-296. DOI: 10.1007/s10699-0515-9468-1.

43. Lenzen, M. (2020). The environmental footprint of health care: A global assessment. Lancet Planet Health 4, e271-279. DOI: 10.116/S2542-5196(20)30121-2.

44. Lipworth, W. & Axler, R. (2016). Towards a bioethics of innovation. Journal of Medical Ethics 42(7), 445-449. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103048.

45. Marckmann, G., Schmidt, H., Sofaer, N. & Stretch, D. (2015). Putting public health ethics into practice: A systematic framework. Frontiers in Public Health. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00023.

46. Misselhorn, C., Pompe, U. & Stapleton, M. (2013). Ethical considerations regarding the use of social robots in the fourth age. GeroPsych 26(2), 121-133. DOI: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000088.

47. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

48. Pacifico Silva, H., Lehoux, P., Miller, F. A. & Denis, H.-L. (2018). Introducing responsible innovation in health: A policy-oriented framework. Health Research Policy and Systems 16(90) DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0362-5.

49. Pantazidou, M. and Nair, I. (1999), Ethic of Care: Guiding Principles for Engineering Teaching & Practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 88: 205-212. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00436.x

50. Perry, J., Beyer, S. & Holm, S. (2009). Assistive technology, telecare, and people with intellectual disabilities: Ethical considerations. Journal of Medicial Ethics 35(2), 81-86. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024588.

51. Raimond, V., Sambuc, C. & Pibouleau, L. (2018). Ethics evaluation revealing decision-maker motives: A case of ne-onatal screening. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 34(2), 189-195. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462318000181.

52. Reuzel, R. P. B., van der Wilt, G.-J., ten Have, H. A. M. J. & de Vries, R. P. F. (2001). Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26(3), 245-261. DOI: 10.1076/jmep.26.3.245.3015.

53. Saarni, S. I., Hofmann, B., Lampe, K., Lühmann, D., Mäkelä, M. Velasco-Garrido, M. & Autti-Rämö, I. (2008). Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86(8), 617-623. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.051078.

54. Sacchini, D., Craxì, L., Refolo, P., Minacori, R., Cicchetti, A., Gasbarrini, A., Cammà, C. & Spagnolo, A. G. (2015). Ethical assessment of hepatitis C virus treatment: The lesson from first generation protease inhibitors. Digestive and Liver Disease 47(5), 351-355. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.11.011.

55. Sacchini, D., Virdis, A., Refolo, P., Pennacchini, M. & Carrasco de Paula, I. (2009). Health technology assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12(4), 453-457. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-009-9206-y.

56. Sharkey, A. (2014). Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics and Information Technology 16(1), 63-75. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-014-9338-5.

57. Sorell, T. & Draper, H. (2014). Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology 16(3), 183-195. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-014-9344-7.

58. Soril, L. J. J., Clement, F. M. & Nosworthy, T. W. (2016). Bioethics, health technology reassessment, and manage-ment. Healthcare Management Forum 29(6), 275-278. DOI: 10.1177/0840470416659385.

59. Stahl, B. C. & Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 86, 152-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018.

60. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1. The fault of Epimetheus. Trans. Richard Bearsworth & George Collins. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA.

61. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1. The fault of Epimetheus. Trans. Richard Bearsworth & George Collins. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA.

62. Stiegler, B. (2011). Distrust and the pharmacology of transformational technologies (Trans. D. Ross). In A., Ferrari, U., Fiedeler, C., Coenen, T., Zülsdorf, C., Milburn & M. Wienroth (eds.). Quantum engagements. Social reflections of nanotechnologies and emerging technologies (pp. 27-39). Heidelberg: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmbH.

63. Stier, J. & Dobers, P. (2017). Quadruple helix co-creation in SSH – Experiences, considerations, lessons learned. Report Work package 2, Accomplissh. Dalarna University. Retrieved from Sustainable Society, University of Groning website: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-34102. Last access on 01/06/2026.

64. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Machnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Pol-icy 42(9), 1568-1580. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

65. Thorstensen, E. (2019). Stakeholders’ views on responsible assessments of assistive technologies through an ethical HTA matrix. Societies 9(3), e51. DOI: 10.3390/soc9030051.

66. Torous, J. & Roberts, L. W. (2017). The ethical use of modile health technology in clinical psychiatry. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 205(1), 4-8. DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000596.

67. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethics of care. New York, NY, London: Routledge.

68. Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy. Markets, equality, and justice. New York, NY, London: New York Universi-ty Press.

69. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Cavolo, A. & Gastmans, C. (2022a). ‘Yes we hear you. Do you hear us?’. A sociopolitical approach to video-based telepsychiatric consultations. Journal of Medical Ethics 48(1), 34-35. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-108058.

70. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Denier, Y. & Gastmans, C. (2022b). The need for a global approach to the ethical evaluation of healthcare machine learning. The American Journal of Bioethics 22(5), 33-35. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2055207.

71. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Denier, Y., Mertens, E. & Gastmans, C. (2022c). Which framework to use? A systematic re-view of frameworks for ethical screening and evaluation of health technology innovations. Science and Engineer-ing Ethics 28(3), 26. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00377-2.

72. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dierckx de Casterlé, B. & Gastmans, C. (2020). Ethics of socially assistive robots in aged-care settings: A socio-historical contextualization. Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 128-136. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105615.

73. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dierckx de Casterlé, B. & Gastmans, C. (2021). Socially assistive robots in aged care: Ethi-cal orientations beyond the care-romantic and technology-deterministic gaze. Science and Engineering Ethics 27(17). DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00296-8.

74. van der Wilt, G. J., Reuzel, R. & Banta, D. H. (2000). The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theoretical Medi-cine and Bioethics 21(1), 101-113. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009934700930.

75. van Wynsberghe, A. (2013a). A method for integrating ethics into the design of robots. Industrial Robot: An Inter-national Journal 40(5), 433-440. DOI: 10.1108/IR-12-2012-451.

76. van Wynsberghe, A. (2013b). Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineer-ing Ethics 19(2), 407-433. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6.

77. Warren-Jones, A. (2013). Mapping science and new health technologies: In search of a definition. In Flear, M. L. Farrell A.-M., Hervey, T. K. & Murphy, T. (eds.). European law and new health technologies (pp. 70-100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

78. Whedon, M. & Ferrell, B. R. (1991). Professional and ethical considerations in the use of high-tech pain manage-ment. Oncology Nursing Forum 18(7), 1135-1143.

79. World Health Organization (2010). Innovative technologies that address global health concerns. Outcome of the call Global Initiative on Health Technologies. Geneva: WHO.

80. World Health Organization. What is a Health Technology? Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/about/healthtechnology/en/. Accessed: December 11th, 2019.