1
|
Vélez CM, Kapiriri L, Goold S, Danis M, Williams I, Aguilera B, Essue BM, Nouvet E. Was priority setting considered in COVID-19 response planning? A global comparative analysis. HEALTH POLICY OPEN 2024; 7:100125. [PMID: 39149127 PMCID: PMC11325004 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2024.100125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Revised: 07/09/2024] [Accepted: 07/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world. Methods We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization. Results The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%. Conclusion The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia-Marcela Vélez
- Department of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Postal code L8S 4M4 and Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Cra 51d #62-29, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
| | - Lydia Kapiriri
- Department of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Postal code L8S 4M4, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Susan Goold
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Marion Danis
- Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Iestyn Williams
- Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Rd, Postal code B15 2RT, Birmingham, UK
| | - Bernardo Aguilera
- Faculty of Medicine and Science at the Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago de Chile, Chile; Providencia, Región Metropolitana
| | - Beverley M Essue
- Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Postal code M5B 1W8, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elysee Nouvet
- School of Health Studies, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, Postal code N6A 3K7, London, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kapiriri L, Essue BM. Lessons learned from a global analysis of priority setting practices in pandemic response planning. Health Policy 2024; 144:105075. [PMID: 38723319 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Lydia Kapiriri
- Department of Health, Aging and Society, McMaster University, 1280 Mainstreet West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| | - Beverly M Essue
- Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 155 College Street, West Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Essue BM, Kapiriri L, Mohamud H, Vélez CM, Nouvet E, Aguilera B, Williams I, Kiwanuka S. Priority setting in times of crises: an analysis of priority setting for the COVID-19 response in the Western Pacific Region. Health Policy 2024; 142:105010. [PMID: 38364637 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2022] [Revised: 11/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/22/2024] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR). METHODS We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans. A pre-specified tool guided data extraction and the analysis examined the use of quality parameters of priority setting, and equity considerations. RESULTS Nine plans were included in this analysis, from the following countries: Papua New Guinea, Tonga, The Philippines, Fiji, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Taiwan. Most commonly the plans described strong political will to respond swiftly, resource needs, stakeholder engagement, and defined the roles of institutions that guided COVID-19 response decision-making. The initial plans did not reflect strong evidence of public engagement or considerations of equity informing the early responses to the pandemic. CONCLUSION This study advances an understanding of how priority setting and equity considerations were integrated to support the development of the initial COVID-19 responses in nine countries in WPR and contributes to the literature on health system planning during emergencies. This baseline assessment reveals evidence of the common priority setting parameters that were deployed in the initial responses, the prioritized resources and equity considerations and reinforces the importance of strengthening health system capacity for priority setting to support future pandemic preparedness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beverley M Essue
- Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 155 College Street West Toronto ON M5T 3M6, Canada.
| | - Lydia Kapiriri
- Department of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, L8S 4M4, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hodan Mohamud
- Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 155 College Street West Toronto ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Claudia-Marcela Vélez
- Department of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, L8S 4M4, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Cra 51d #62-29, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
| | - Elysee Nouvet
- School of Health Studies, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, N6A 3K7, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bernardo Aguilera
- Faculty of Medicine and Science at the Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago de Chile, Providencia, Región Metropolitana, Chile
| | - Iestyn Williams
- Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Rd, B15 2RT, Birmingham, UK
| | - Suzanne Kiwanuka
- Department of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Uganda
| |
Collapse
|