Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair? A qualitative study

Applying priority-setting frameworks: A review of public and vulnerable populations' participation in health-system priority setting

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature that describes, applies, and evaluates applications of health-system priority-setting frameworks in different contexts. However, little explicit focus has been given to examining operationalization of the stakeholder participation component of these frameworks. The literature identifies the public as a stakeholder group and recommends their participation when applying the frameworks.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to search the PubMed, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, Medline, and PsycINFO databases for cases where priority-setting frameworks were applied (2000-2017). We aimed to synthesize current literature to examine the degree to which the public and vulnerable populations have been engaged through applications of these frameworks FINDINGS: The following stakeholders commonly participated: managers, administrators/coordinators, clinicians/physicians, non-physician health care providers, health economists, academics/researchers, experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers. Few papers reported on public participation, and even fewer identified vulnerable groups that participate. Stakeholders were most commonly reported to participate in identifying areas for prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

While the frameworks were developed with stakeholder participation in mind, in practice not all stakeholders are participating in priority-setting processes as envisioned by the frameworks. The public and vulnerable groups do not consistently participate, challenging the utility of the participation component of frameworks in guiding stakeholder participation in health-system priority setting. Frameworks can be more explicit about which stakeholders should participate and detailing how their participation should be operationalized.

Beyond cost-effectiveness, morbidity and mortality: a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV programming in Uganda

BACKGROUND

While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low income countries to maximize the benefits of the available resources. This necessitates identification of priorities that should be funded. Evaluating prioritization processes would enable decision makers to assess the effectiveness of their processes, thereby designing intervention strategies. To date most evaluations have focused on cost-benefit analyses, which overlooks additional critical impacts of priority setting decisions. Kapiriri & Martin (2010) developed and validated a comprehensive framework for evaluating PS in low income countries. The objective of this paper report findings from a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV in Uganda, using the framework; and to identify lessons of good practice and areas for improvement.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on forty interviews with decision makers and policy document review. Data were analysed using INVIVO 10, and based on the parameters in Kapiriri et al's evaluation framework.

RESULTS

We found that HIV enjoys political support, which contributes to the availability of resources, strong planning institutions, and participatory prioritization process based on some criteria. Some of the identified limitations included; undue donor and political influence, priorities not being publicized, and lack of mechanisms for appealing the decisions. HIV prioritization had both positive and negative impacts on the health system.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework facilitated a more comprehensive evaluation of HIV priority setting. While there were successful areas, the process could be strengthened by minimizing undue influence of external actors, and support the legitimate institutions to set priorities and implement them. These should also institute mechanisms for publicizing the decisions, appeals and increased accountability. While this paper looked at HIV, the framework is flexible enough to be used in evaluating priority setting for other health programs within similar context.

Practicalities of health survey fieldwork research in a resource limited setting: challenges and lessons learnt from Uganda

BACKGROUND

Countless research has been undertaken in sub-Saharan African countries to provide evidence for health policy interventions. However, despite the bulk of health research, very few studies have documented the experiences and practicalities of conducting health survey fieldwork in such settings.

METHODS

Results were obtained through synthesis of notes on fieldwork experiences documented during a household survey as part of a doctoral research project. Challenges faced and adaptive strategies developed to overcome or reduce the impact on the survey are highlighted.

RESULTS

Key challenges included infrastructure and electrical power outages; sampling and access to clients; ethics approval and political stability; and safety and wellbeing of researchers. Adaptive strategies were developed to overcome the different challenges faced.

CONCLUSION

The experiences highlighted and strategies developed to overcome fieldwork challenges give practical advice for future data collection research in similar sub-Saharan African settings.

Problems with prioritization: exploring ethical solutions to inequalities in HIV care

Enormous gaps between HIV burden and health care availability in low-income countries raise severe ethical problems. This article analyzes four HIV-priority dilemmas with interest across contexts and health systems. We explore principled distributive conflicts and use the Atkinson index to make explicit trade-offs between health maximization and equality in health. We find that societies need a relatively low aversion to inequality to favor treatment for children, even with large weights assigned to extending the lives of adults: higher inequality aversion is needed to share resources equally between high-cost and low-cost treatment; higher inequality aversion is needed to favor treatment rather than prevention, and the highest inequality aversion is needed to favor sharing treatment between urban and rural regions rather than urban provision of treatment. This type of ethical sensitivity analysis may clarify the ethics of health policy choice.