IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Health Technology – New Value Spaces For Personal Health Systems To Support Active Ageing


  • Peine


  • Moors


In this paper, we strive to unravel in how far current practices of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) are suitable to guide health policy decisions about personal health systems (PHS). We focus on the implicit representations of users and their position in the innovation process that underly established HTA practices, and explore in how far these representations are conducive to health technology decisions that support older people in meaningful and active lives. Our analysis builds on Callon’s recent distinction between prosthetic and habilitation social policies [M. Callon, Economic Markets and the Rise of Interactive Agencements: From Prosthetic Agencies to Habilitated Agencies, in: T. Pinch, R. Swedberg (Eds.), Living in a Material World: Economic Sociology Meets Science and Technology Studies, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 29-56]. We revisit the results of two case studies that we conducted in the fields of Point-of-Care Diagnostics, set in the domains of primary and secondary care, and care robot service platforms operating in domestic environments. By contrasting these cases we demonstrate how a different logic of addressing values in innovation feeds into either prosthetic or habilitation policy decisions about health technology. Based on this analysis, we argue that HTA practices in the context of PHS need to incorporate a logic of valuing health technology in order to fully deliver the potential of PHS to the lives of older persons.

Suggested Citation

  • Peine & Moors, 2013. "Valuing Health Technology – New Value Spaces For Personal Health Systems To Support Active Ageing," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 13-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Sep 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:uis:wpaper:1302

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Version February 2013
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Gordon, Elisa Jill, 2006. "The political contexts of evidence-based medicine: Policymaking for daily hemodialysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2707-2719, June.
    2. Williams, Tracy & May, Carl & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 39-54, April.
    3. Goldenberg, Maya J., 2006. "On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2621-2632, June.
    4. Lambert, Helen & Gordon, Elisa J. & Bogdan-Lovis, Elizabeth A., 2006. "Introduction: Gift horse or Trojan horse? Social science perspectives on evidence-based health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2613-2620, June.
    5. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    6. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    7. J. Barkley Rosser, 2009. "Introduction," Chapters, in: J. Barkley Rosser Jr. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Complexity, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. #HEJC papers for October 2013
      by academichealtheconomists in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2013-10-01 04:30:26

    More about this item


    Innovation; health technology; ageing; user representation; care robots; HTA;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uis:wpaper:1302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gaston Heimeriks). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.