Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies

Addressing the needs of Ethiopia's street homeless women of reproductive age in the health and social protection policy: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Globally, homelessness is a growing concern, and homeless women of reproductive age are particularly vulnerable to adverse physical, mental, and reproductive health conditions, including violence. Although Ethiopia has many homeless individuals, the topic has received little attention in the policy arena. Therefore, we aimed to understand the reason for the lack of attention, with particular emphasis on women of reproductive age.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study; 34 participants from governmental and non-governmental organisations responsible for addressing homeless individuals' needs participated in in-depth interviews. A deductive analysis of the interview materials was applied using Shiffman and Smith's political prioritisation framework.

RESULTS

Several factors contributed to the underrepresentation of homeless women's health and well-being needs in the policy context. Although many governmental and non-governmental organisations contributed to the homeless-focused programme, there was little collaboration and no unifying leadership. Moreover, there was insufficient advocacy and mobilisation to pressure national leaders. Concerning ideas, there was no consensus regarding the definition of and solution to homeless women's health and social protection issues. Regarding political contexts and issue characteristics, a lack of a well-established structure, a paucity of information on the number of homeless women and the severity of their health situations relative to other problems, and the lack of clear indicators prevented this issue from gaining political priority.

CONCLUSIONS

To prioritise the health and well-being of homeless women, the government should form a unifying collaboration and a governance structure that addresses the unmet needs of these women. It is imperative to divide responsibilities and explicitly include homeless people and services targeted for them in the national health and social protection implementation documents. Further, generating consensus on framing the problems and solutions and establishing indicators for assessing the situation is vital.

Priority setting for pandemic preparedness and response: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 pandemic plans in 12 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted health systems and exacerbated pre-existing resource gaps in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO-EMRO). Active humanitarian and refugee crises have led to mass population displacement and increased health system fragility, which has implication for equitable priority setting (PS). We examine whether and how PS was included in national COVID-19 pandemic plans within EMRO.

Methods

An analysis of COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of 12/22 countries in WHO-EMRO. We assessed the degree to which documented PS processes adhere to twenty established quality parameters of effective PS.

Results

While all reviewed plans addressed some aspect of PS, none included all quality parameters. Yemen's plan included the highest number (9) of quality parameters, while Egypt's addressed the lowest (3). Most plans used evidence in their planning processes. While no plans explicitly identify equity as a criterion to guide PS; many identified vulnerable populations - a key component of equitable PS. Despite high concentrations of refugees, migrants, and IDPs in EMRO, only a quarter of the plans identified them as vulnerable.

Conclusion

PS setting challenges are exacerbated by conflict and the resulting health system fragmentation. Systematic and quality PS is essential to tackle long-term health implications of COVID-19 for vulnerable populations in this region, and to support effective PS and equitable resource allocation.

Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment

Priority setting is a critical process for national healthcare systems that need to allocate limited resources across unlimited healthcare demands. In recent decades, health policymakers have identified the need to combine technical dimensions of priority setting with political dimensions relating to community values. A range of methods for engaging the public in priority setting has been developed, yet there is no consensus around the most effective methodology. A 2014 paper proposed the integration of two methods currently used for soliciting public preferences around health care services: i) an individual survey instrument, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) and ii) Citizen Juries (CJs), a group-based model that incorporates education and deliberative dialogue. This pilot study is among the first to empirically test this integrated method to assess its value across two domains: does the CJ process alter participant preferences and are the consensus values of the CJ captured by the individualistic DCE? The two-part, mixed methods study was administered in Taipei, Taiwan in August of 2016. Twenty-seven participants completed a DCE as a baseline pre-test, ranking a set of attributes in terms of importance for future resource allocation under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System. Twenty of the participants next took part in the integrated CJ-DCE method, which consisted of education and facilitated dialogue through a CJ, followed by retaking the DCE survey. Participant preferences changed after undergoing the CJ process and these new, group-based preferences were reflected in the second DCE, meaning participants did not revert to their original individualistic preferences. The results of this study demonstrate that the integrated CJ-DCE method adds value in allowing an ethically communitarian set of values to be developed and captured via an individualistic methodology. Further testing is needed to investigate the reliability of our findings and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance.

Does health economics research align with the disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa region? A systematic review of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluation studies demonstrate the value of money in health interventions and enhance the efficiency of the healthcare system. Therefore, this study reviews published economic evaluation studies of public health interventions from 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and examines whether they addressed the region's major health problems.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were utilized to search for relevant articles published up to June 26, 2021. The reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 61 studies. Approximately half (28 studies; 46%) were conducted in Israel and Iran. The main areas of interest for economic evaluation studies were infectious diseases (21 studies; 34%), cancers (13 studies; 21%), and genetic disorders (nine studies; 15%). Five (8%), 39 (64%), 16 (26%), and one (2%) studies were classified as excellent, high, average, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of CHEERS checklist items reported was 80.8% (SD 14%). Reporting the structure and justification of the selected model was missed in 21 studies (37%), while price and conversion rates and the analytical methods were missed in 21 studies (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions in the MENA region remains low; however, the overall quality is high to excellent. There were obvious geographic gaps across countries regarding the number and quality of studies and gaps within countries concerning disease prioritization. The observed research output, however, did not reflect current and upcoming disease burden and risk factors trends in the MENA region.

The political economy of priority-setting for health in South Sudan: a case study of the health pooled fund

BACKGROUND

In fragile and conflict affected settings (FCAS) such as South Sudan, where health needs are immense, resources are scarce, health infrastructure is rudimentary or damaged, and government stewardship is weak, adequate health intervention priority-setting is especially important. There is a scarcity of research examining priority-setting in FCAS and the related political economy. Yet, capturing these dynamics is important to develop context-specific guidance for priority-setting. The objective of this study is to analyze the priority-setting practices in the Health Pooled Fund (HPF), a multi-donor fund that supports service delivery in South Sudan, using a political economy perspective.

METHODS

A multi-method study was conducted combining document review, 30 stakeholder interviews, and an examination of service delivery. An adapted version of the Walt and Gilson policy analysis triangle guided the study's design and analysis.

RESULTS

Priority-setting in HPF occurs in a context of immense fragility where health needs are vast, service delivery remains weak, and external funding is essential. HPF's service package gives priority to the health of mothers and children, gender-sensitive programming, immunization services, and a community health initiative. HPF is structured by a web of actors at national and local levels with pronounced power asymmetries and differing vested interests and ideas about HPF's role. Priority-setting takes place throughout program design, implementing partner (IP) contract negotiation, and implementation of the service package. In practice the BPHNS does not provide adequate guidance for priority-setting because it is too expansive and unrealistic given financial and health system constraints. At the local level, IPs must manage the competing interests of the HPF program and local health authorities as well as challenging contextual factors, including conflict and shortages of qualified health workers, which affect service provision. The resulting priority-setting process remains implicit, scarcely documented, and primarily driven by donors' interests.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights power asymmetries between donors and national health authorities within a FCAS context, which drive a priority-setting process that is dominated by donor agendas and leave little room for government ownership. These findings emphasize the importance of paying attention to the influence of stakeholders and their interests on the priority-setting process in FCAS.

Priority setting of vaccine introduction in Bangladesh: a multicriteria decision analysis study

OBJECTIVE

To prioritise vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) process was used to prioritise potential vaccines for introduction in Bangladesh. A set of criteria were identified, weighted and assigned scores by relevant stakeholders (n=14) during workshop A. The performance matrix of the data of vaccines against the criteria set was constructed and validated with the experts (n=6) in workshop B. The vaccines were ranked and appraised by another group of stakeholders (n=10) in workshop C, and the final workshop D involved the dissemination of the findings to decision-makers (n=28).

RESULTS

Five criteria including incidence rate, case fatality rate, vaccine efficacy, size of the population at risk and type of population at risk were used quantitatively to evaluate and to score the vaccines. Two other criteria, cost-effectiveness and outbreak potentiality, were considered qualitatively. On deliberation, the Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine was ranked top to be recommended for introduction in Bangladesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the MCDA results, JE vaccine is planned to be recommended to the decision-makers for introduction into the national vaccine benefit package. The policymakers support the use of systematic evidence-based decision-making processes such as MCDA for vaccine introduction in Bangladesh, and to prioritise health interventions in the country.

Value of willingness to pay for a QALY gained in Iran; a modified chained-approach

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of a constant Willingness to Pay per one additional Quality Adjusted Life Years gained based on the preferences of Iran's general public, the cost-effectiveness of health system interventions is unclear and making it challenging to apply economic evaluation to health resources priority setting.

METHODS

We have measured this cost-effectiveness threshold with the participation of 2854 individuals from five provinces, each representing an income quintile, using a modified Time Trade-Off-based Chained-Approach. In this online-based empirical survey, to extract the health utility value, participants were randomly assigned to one of two green (21121) and yellow (22222) health scenarios designed based on the earlier validated EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

RESULTS

Across the two health state versions, mean values for one QALY gain (rounded) ranged from $6740-$7400 and $6480-$7120, respectively, for aggregate and trimmed models, which are equivalent to 1.35-1.18 times of the GDP per capita. Log-linear Multivariate OLS regression analysis confirmed that respondents were more likely to pay if their income, disutility, and education level were higher than their counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

In the health system of Iran, any intervention that is with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, equal to and less than 7402.12 USD, will be considered cost-effective.

Putting the local back into planning-experiences and perceptions of state and district health functionaries of seven aspirational districts in India on an innovative planning capacity building approach

District functionaries have ostensibly a major responsibility to develop evidence based plans. However, this responsibility is not commensurate with skills and expertise among functionaries in many Indian states. Vriddhi project-technical partner of the government, developed a planning tool for maternal and neonatal health programmes, called RMNCH + A Action Agenda using Strategic Approach (RAASTA), which was introduced in a workshop format in two states and attended by program officers. Qualitative feedback was obtained from selected participants to understand their experience of the workshop and of the planning tool. It emerged that previous planning process had little application of local evidence based solutions. Participants appreciated the alternative approach as RAASTA equipped them to use local evidence. Several action plans derived at the workshop were included in the state plan. At the same time, apprehension was expressed by participants about translating their learnings to practical application as planning was not a central priority in their scheme of duties and tasks. Enhanced support from states in refreshing district planners' skills would be an important step. One state government has scaled up the RAASTA tool while an electronic version is being developed for future use as it demonstrates great potential to equip and aid district officials in developing evidence based plans.

The Content and Implementation of Policies and Programs on Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health in Vietnam: Results and Challenges

In Vietnam, great efforts have been made in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information provision, education, communication, as well as service provision for the adolescent and youth (A&Y) over the last 10 years. This paper aimed to examine the content and implementation of SRH policies for A&Y between 2006 and 2017. Case studies were conducted, including interviews and historical documentation. Qualitative data were collected in Hai Duong, Hue, and Dong Thap provinces through 34 in-depth interviews with representatives of central/provincial agencies and 9 focus group discussions with representatives of communal agencies and beneficiaries. SRH policies for A&Y during 2006 to 2017, along with other related national policies, were developed cohesively, however, the gaps in information provision, education, communication as well as service provision remained unresolved. The contents of policies and program implementation did not cover comprehensively, especially regarding disadvantaged groups such as disabled people, migrants, ethnic minorities, and people aged 10 to 14 years. The A&Y SRH policies and program implementation had faced some challenges relating to governance, service delivery, health workforce, health information system, and health financing. The SRH policy for A&Y in the next period needs to be focused on interventions/services for disadvantaged groups. While the human resource is of great importance for the capacity and feasibility to tackle SRH’s challenges, strengthening the advocacy to ensure policies/programs should be prioritized and committed for effective implementation. An appropriate financing system to run information provision, education, communication, and support services for A&Y must be considered during policy development and implementation.

Investigating public values in health care priority - Chileans´ preference for national health care

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs.

METHODS

We applied an innovative survey method developed for this study to sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people's preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1142 individuals.

RESULTS

More than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis of 159 health interventions for the Ethiopian essential health service package

BACKGROUND

Cost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia's essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia's EHSP.

METHODS

In this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization (WHO) CHOosing Interventions that are cost effective methodology (CHOICE) for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits. We estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results.

RESULTS

We found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1000 per HLY.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia's disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization's generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia's EHSP.

WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19

Introduction

Public health decision-making requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, participatory, evidence-informed decision-making processes to identify and weigh these factors are often not possible- especially, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered.

Objective

To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Methods

We employed the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework as a starting point. First, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to case studies. Next, we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we developed the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework version 1.0.

Results

Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were analysed. The revised framework consists of 11+1 criteria, supported by 48 aspects, and embraces a complex systems perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental and economic implications, as well as implementation, resource and feasibility considerations.

Discussion

The proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.

Reducing Disrespect and Abuse of Women During Antenatal Care and Delivery Services at Injibara General Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: A Pre-Post Interventional Study

Introduction

Disrespect and abuse during pregnancy and childbirth continue to be a barrier for the utilization and quality of care in maternal health services. This study was therefore aimed at reducing the disrespect and abuse of mothers during antenatal care and delivery services at Injibara general hospital, northwest Ethiopia.

Materials and Methods

A pre–post interventional mixed method design was conducted among a total of 738 randomly selected mothers who attended antenatal care and delivery services from November 1, 2018 to May 20, 2019. To collect the data, exit interview using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire was used. Provision of training, preparation of standard written guidelines and protocols, waiting room construction, availing screening or curtain, equipment, essential drugs and supplies, supportive supervision and mentoring, and staff motivation were the lists of interventions applied to decrease disrespect and abuse. Descriptive statistics and independent t-test were computed. The independanet t-test is used because the study populations at the baseline and endline were different. A p-value of <0.05 and a mean difference with 95% CI was used to test the significance of the interventions.

Results

The study revealed that disrespect and abuse during pregnancy and childbirth decreased from 71.8% at baseline to 15.9% at the end-line with a 55.9% change (mean difference: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.55–0.57). Alongside, the magnitude on the subscales of disrespect and abuse (physical abuse, non-consented care, non-confidential care, non-dignified care, discrimination and neglected care) was decreased at post-intervention, compared with the baseline.

Conclusion

Respectful maternal healthcare after the intervention was significantly improved. The finding suggests that provision of training to healthcare providers, written policies and procedures that describe the responsibilities of healthcare providers in the respectful maternal care process, improving facility infrastructure, availing supplies, regular supportive supervision and mentoring and motivation of high-performance employees have the potential to enhance respectful maternal care. Therefore, incorporating such training into pre-service curricula and in‐service training of healthcare workers may indorse the practice of respectful maternal care.

Maternal and newborn health priority setting partnership in rural Uganda in association with the James Lind Alliance: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Maternal and newborn deaths and ill health are relatively common in low income countries, but can adequately be addressed through locally, collaboratively designed, and responsive research. This has the potential to enable the affected women, their families and health workers themselves to explore 'why maternal and newborn adverse outcomes continue to occur. The objectives of the study include; To work with seldom heard groups of mothers, their families, and health workers to identify unanswered research questions for maternal and newborn health in villages and health facilities in rural UgandaTo establish locally responsive research questions for maternal and newborn health that could be prioritised together with the public in UgandaTo support the case for locally responsive research in maternal and newborn health by the ministry of health, academic researchers and funding bodies in Uganda.

METHODS

The present study will follow the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology. The project was initiated by an academic research group and will be managed by a research team at the Sanyu Africa Research Institute on a day to day basis. A steering group with a separate lay mothers' group and partners' group (individuals or organisations with interest in maternal and newborn health) will be recruited. The PSP will be initiated by launch meetings, then a face-to-face initial survey for the collection of raw unanswered questions; followed by data collation. A face-to-face interim prioritisation survey will then be performed to choose questions before the three separate final prioritisation workshops.The PSP will involve many participants from an illiterate, non-internet population in rural eastern Uganda, but all with an interest in strategies to avert maternal and newborn deaths or morbidities in rural eastern Uganda. This includes local rural women, their families, health and social workers, and relevant local groups or organisations.We will generate a top 10 list of maternal and newborn health research priorities from a group with no prior experience in setting a research agenda in rural eastern Uganda.

DISCUSSION

The current protocol elaborates the JLA methods for application with a new topic and in a new setting translating the JLA principles not just into the local language, but into a rural, vulnerable, illiterate, and non-internet population in Uganda. The face-to-face human interaction is powerful in eliciting what exactly matters to individuals in this particular context as opposed to online surveys.This will be the first time that mothers and lay public with current or previous experience of maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes will have the opportunity to identify and prioritise research questions that matter to them in Uganda. We will be able to compare how the public would prioritise maternal health research questions over newborn health in this setting.

Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory.

RESULTS

We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings.

CONCLUSION

Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.

Use of the GRADE approach in health policymaking and evaluation: a scoping review of nutrition and physical activity policies

BACKGROUND

Nutrition and physical activity policies have the potential to influence lifestyle patterns and reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. In the world of health-related guidelines, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is the most widely used approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and determining the strength of recommendations. Thus, it is relevant to explore its usefulness also in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation. The purpose of this scoping review was (i) to generate an exemplary overview of documents using the GRADE approach in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation, (ii) to find out how the GRADE approach has been applied, and (iii) to explore which facilitators of and barriers to the use of GRADE have been described on the basis of the identified documents. The overarching aim of this work is to work towards improving the process of evidence-informed policymaking in the areas of dietary behavior, physical activity, and sedentary behavior.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted according to current reporting standards. MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched up until 4 July 2019. Documents describing a body of evidence which was assessed for the development or evaluation of a policy, including documents labeled as "guidelines," or systematic reviews used to inform policymaking were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-six documents were included. Overall, 313 GRADE certainty of evidence ratings were identified in systematic reviews and guidelines; the strength of recommendations/policies was assessed in four documents, and six documents mentioned facilitators or barriers for the use of GRADE. The major reported barrier was the initial low starting level of a body of evidence from non-randomized studies when assessing the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review found that the GRADE approach has been used for policy evaluations, in the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy-relevant interventions (policymaking), as well as in the development of guidelines intended to guide policymaking. Several areas for future research were identified to explore the use of GRADE in health policymaking and evaluation.

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background

Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.

Results

We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.

Challenges to generating political prioritization for adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Kenya: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite the high burden of adverse adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes, it has remained a low political priority in Kenya. We examined factors that have shaped the lack of current political prioritization of adolescent SRH service provision.

METHODS

We used the Shiffman and Smith policy framework consisting of four categories-actor power, ideas, political contexts, and issue characteristics-to analyse factors that have shaped political prioritization of adolescent SRH. We undertook semi-structured interviews with 14 members of adolescent SRH networks between February and April 2019 at the national level and conducted thematic analysis of the interviews.

FINDINGS

Several factors hinder the attainment of political priority for adolescent SRH in Kenya. On actor power, the adolescent SRH community was diverse and united in adoption of international norms and policies, but lacked policy entrepreneurs to provide strong leadership, and policy windows were often missed. Regarding ideas, community members lacked consensus on a cohesive public positioning of the problem. On issue characteristics, the perception of adolescents as lacking political power made politicians reluctant to act on the existing data on the severity of adolescent SRH. There was also a lack of consensus on the nature of interventions to be implemented. Pertaining to political contexts, sectoral funding by donors and government treasury brought about tension within the different government ministries resulting in siloed approaches, lack of coordination and overall inefficiency. However, the SRH community has several strengths that augur well for future political support. These include the diverse multi-sectoral background of its members, commitment to improving adolescent SRH, and the potential to link with other health priorities such as maternal health and HIV/AIDS.

CONCLUSION

In order to increase political attention to adolescent SRH in Kenya, there is an urgent need for policy actors to: 1) create a more cohesive community of advocates across sectors, 2) develop a clearer public positioning of adolescent SRH, 3) agree on a set of precise approaches that will resonate with the political system, and 4) identify and nurture policy entrepreneurs to facilitate the coupling of adolescent SRH with potential solutions when windows of opportunity arise.

Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa

Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.

Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify criteria being used for priority setting for resource allocation decisions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Furthermore, the included studies were analyzed from a policy perspective to understand priority setting processes in these countries.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, supplemented with pre-identified Web sites and bibliographic searches of relevant papers. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken. The review protocol is registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO CRD42017068371.

RESULTS

Of 16,412 records screened by title and abstract, 112 papers were identified for full text screening and 44 studies were included in the final analysis. At an overall level, cost-effectiveness 52 percent (n = 22) and health benefits 45 percent (n = 19) were the most cited criteria used for priority setting for public health resource allocation. Inter-region (LMICs) and between various approaches (like health technology assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), accountability for reasonableness (AFR) variations among criteria were also noted. Our review found that MCDA approach was more frequently used in upper middle-income countries and AFR in lower-income countries for priority setting in health. Policy makers were the most frequently consulted stakeholders in all regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Priority-setting criteria for health resource allocation decisions in LMICs largely comprised of cost-effectiveness and health benefits criteria at overall level. Other criteria like legal and regulatory framework conducive for implementation, fairness/ethics, and political considerations were infrequently reported and should be considered.

Decision-making in district health planning in Uganda: does use of district-specific evidence matter?

BACKGROUND

In a decentralised health system, district health managers are tasked with planning for health service delivery, which should be evidence based. However, planning in low-income countries such as Uganda has been described as ad hoc. A systematic approach to the planning process using district-specific evidence was introduced to district health managers in Uganda. However, little is known about how the use of district-specific evidence informs the planning process. In this study, we investigate how the use of this evidence affects decision-making in the planning process and how stakeholders in the planning process perceived the use of evidence.

METHODS

A convergent parallel mixed-methods study design was used, where quantitative data was collected from district health annual work plans for the financial years 2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 as well as from bottleneck analysis reports for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants from the two study districts.

RESULTS

District managers reported that they were able to produce more robust district annual work plans when they used the systematic approach of using district-specific evidence. Approximately half of the prioritised activities in the annual work plans were evidence based. Procurement and logistics, training, and support supervision activities were the most prioritised activities. Between 4% and 5.5% of the total planned expenditure was for child survival, of which 47% to 94% was from donor and other partner contributions.

CONCLUSION

District-specific evidence and a structured process for its use to prioritise activities and make decisions in the planning process at the district level helped systematise the planning process. However, the reported limited decision and fiscal space, inadequate funding and high dependency on donor funding did not always allow for the use of district-specific evidence in the planning process.

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.

METHODS

In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.

RESULTS

The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria-balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations-and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

Study design and the estimation of the size of key populations at risk of HIV: lessons from Viet Nam

BACKGROUND

Estimation of the size of populations at risk of HIV is a key activity in the surveillance of the HIV epidemic. The existing framework for considering future research needs may provide decision-makers with a basis for a fair process of deciding on the methods of the estimation of the size of key populations at risk of HIV. This study explores the extent to which stakeholders involved with population size estimation agree with this framework, and thus, the study updates the framework.

METHODS

We conducted 16 in-depth interviews with key informants from city and provincial governments, NGOs, research institutes, and the community of people at risk of HIV. Transcripts were analyzed and reviewed for significant statements pertaining to criteria. Variations and agreement around criteria were analyzed, and emerging criteria were validated against the existing framework.

RESULTS

Eleven themes emerged which are relevant to the estimation of the size of populations at risk of HIV in Viet Nam. Findings on missing criteria, inclusive participation, community perspectives and conflicting weight and direction of criteria provide insights for an improved framework for the prioritization of population size estimation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the exclusion of community members from decision-making on population size estimation methods in Viet Nam may affect the validity, use, and efficiency of the evidence generated. However, a wider group of decision-makers, including community members among others, may introduce diverse definitions, weight and direction of criteria. Although findings here may not apply to every country with a transitioning economy or to every emerging epidemic, the principles of fair decision-making, value of community participation in decision-making and the expected challenges faced, merit consideration in every situation.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Getting it right when budgets are tight: Using optimal expansion pathways to prioritize responses to concentrated and mixed HIV epidemics

Background

Prioritizing investments across health interventions is complicated by the nonlinear relationship between intervention coverage and epidemiological outcomes. It can be difficult for countries to know which interventions to prioritize for greatest epidemiological impact, particularly when budgets are uncertain.

Methods

We examined four case studies of HIV epidemics in diverse settings, each with different characteristics. These case studies were based on public data available for Belarus, Peru, Togo, and Myanmar. The Optima HIV model and software package was used to estimate the optimal distribution of resources across interventions associated with a range of budget envelopes. We constructed “investment staircases”, a useful tool for understanding investment priorities. These were used to estimate the best attainable cost-effectiveness of the response at each investment level.

Findings

We find that when budgets are very limited, the optimal HIV response consists of a smaller number of ‘core’ interventions. As budgets increase, those core interventions should first be scaled up, and then new interventions introduced. We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of HIV programming decreases as investment levels increase, but that the overall cost-effectiveness remains below GDP per capita.

Significance

It is important for HIV programming to respond effectively to the overall level of funding availability. The analytic tools presented here can help to guide program planners understand the most cost-effective HIV responses and plan for an uncertain future.

Methods for medical device and equipment procurement and prioritization within low- and middle-income countries: findings of a systematic literature review

Background

Forty to 70 % of medical devices and equipment in low- and middle-income countries are broken, unused or unfit for purpose; this impairs service delivery to patients and results in lost resources. Undiscerning procurement processes are at the heart of this issue.

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to August 2013 with no time or language restrictions to identify what product selection or prioritization methods are recommended or used for medical device and equipment procurement planning within low- and middle-income countries. We explore the factors/evidence-base proposed for consideration within such methods and identify prioritization criteria.

Results

We included 217 documents (corresponding to 250 texts) in the narrative synthesis. Of these 111 featured in the meta-summary. We identify experience and needs-based methods used to reach procurement decisions. Equipment costs (including maintenance) and health needs are the dominant issues considered. Extracted data suggest that procurement officials should prioritize devices with low- and middle-income country appropriate technical specifications – i.e. devices and equipment that can be used given available human resources, infrastructure and maintenance capacity.

Conclusion

Suboptimal device use is directly linked to incomplete costing and inadequate consideration of maintenance services and user training during procurement planning. Accurate estimation of life-cycle costing and careful consideration of device servicing are of crucial importance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-017-0280-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCE OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY SETTING OF HIV/AIDS INTERVENTIONS

Objectives: This study describes the views of various stakeholders on the importance of different criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia.

Methods: Based on a general list of criteria and a focus group discussion with stakeholders (n = 6), a list was developed of thirty-two criteria that play a role in priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West-Java province. Criteria were categorized according to the World Health Organization's health system goals and building block frameworks. People living with HIV/AIDS (n = 49), healthcare workers (HCW) (n = 41), the general population (n = 43), and policy makers (n = 22) rated the importance of thirty-two criteria on a 5-point Likert-scale. Thereafter, respondents ranked the highest rated criteria to express more detailed preferences.

Results: Stakeholders valued the following criteria as most important for the priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions: an intervention's impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, reduction of stigma, quality of care, effectiveness on individual level, and feasibility in terms of current capacity of the health system (i.e., HCW, product, information, and service requirements), financial sustainability, and acceptance by donors. Overall, stakeholders’ preferences for the importance of criteria are similar.

Conclusions: Our study design outlines an approach for other settings to identify which criteria are important for priority setting of health interventions. For Indonesia, these study results may be used in priority setting processes for HIV/AIDS control and may contribute to more transparent and systematic allocation of resources.

Setting budgets and priorities at state health agencies

CONTEXT

State health departments across the country are responsible for assuring and improving the health of the public, and yet financial constraints grow only more acute, and resource allocation decisions become even more challenging. Little empirical evidence exists regarding how officials working in state health departments make these tough allocation decisions.

DESIGN

Through a mixed-methods process, we attempted to address this gap in knowledge and characterize issues of resource allocation at state health agencies (SHAs). First, we conducted 45 semistructured interviews across 6 states. Next, a Web-based survey was sent to 355 public health leaders within all states and District of Columbia. In total, 207 leaders responded to the survey (66% response rate).

PARTICIPANTS

Leaders of SHAs.

RESULTS

The data suggest that state public health leaders are highly consultative internally while making resource allocation decisions, but they also frequently engage with the governor's office and the legislature-much more so at the executive level than at the division director level. Respondents reported that increasing and decreasing funding for certain activities occur frequently and have a moderate impact on the agency or division budget. Agencies continue to "thin the soup," or prefer cutting broadly to cutting deeply.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health leaders report facing significant tradeoffs in the course of priority-setting. The authorizing environment continues to force public health leaders to make challenging tradeoffs between unmet need and political considerations, and among vulnerable groups.

Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning ('core' criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders ('contextual' criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

BACKGROUND

In addition to cost-effectiveness, national guidelines often include other factors in reimbursement decisions. However, weights attached to these are rarely quantified, thus decisions can depend strongly on decision-maker preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the preferences of policymakers and healthcare professionals involved in the decision-making process for different efficiency and equity attributes of interventions and to analyse cross-country differences.

METHOD

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were carried out in Austria, Hungary, and Norway with policymakers and other professionals working in the health industry (N = 153 respondents). Interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity attributes (severity of disease, target age of the population and willingness to subsidise others, potential number of beneficiaries, individual health benefit, and cost-effectiveness). Parameter estimates from the DCE were used to calculate the probability of choosing a healthcare intervention with different characteristics, and to rank different equity and efficiency attributes according to their importance.

RESULTS

In all three countries, cost-effectiveness, individual health benefit and severity of the disease were significant and equally important determinants of decisions. All countries show preferences for interventions targeting young and middle aged populations compared to those targeting populations over 60. However, decision-makers in Austria and Hungary show preferences more oriented to efficiency than equity, while those in Norway show equal preferences for equity and efficiency attributes.

CONCLUSION

We find that factors other than cost-effectiveness seem to play an equally important role in decision-making. We also find evidence of cross-country differences in the weight of efficiency and equity attributes.

What criteria do decision makers in Thailand use to set priorities for vaccine introduction?

Background

There is a need to identify rational criteria and set priorities for vaccines. In Thailand, many licensed vaccines are being considering for introduction into the Expanded Program on Immunization; thus, the government has to make decisions about which vaccines should be adopted. This study aimed to set priorities for new vaccines and to facilitate decision analysis.

Methods

We used a best-worst scaling study for rank-ordering of vaccines. The candidate vaccines were determined by a set of criteria, including burden of disease, target age group, budget impact, side effect, effectiveness, severity of disease, and cost of vaccine. The criteria were identified from a literature review and by in-depth, open-ended interviews with experts. The priority-setting model was conducted among three groups of stakeholders, including policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators. The vaccine data were mapped and then calculated for the probability of selection.

Results

From the candidate vaccines, the probability of hepatitis B vaccine being selected by all respondents (96.67 %) was ranked first. This was followed, respectively, by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 (95.09 %) and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine (90.87 %). The three groups of stakeholders (policy makers, healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators) showed the same ranking trends. Most severe disease, high fever rate and high disease burden showed the highest coefficients for criterion levels being selected by all respondents. This result can be implied that a vaccine which can prevent most severe disease with high disease burden and has low safety has a greater chance of being selected by respondents in this study.

Conclusions

The priority setting of vaccines through a multiple-criteria approach could contribute to transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. This is a step forward in the development of an evidence-based approach that meets the need of developing country. The methodology is generalizable but its application to another country would require the criteria as relevant to that country.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3382-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A qualitative appraisal of stakeholder reactions to a tool for burden of disease-based health system budgeting in Ghana

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Ghana Health Service launched a program of cooperation with the Tanzania Ministry of Health and Social Welfare that was designed to adapt Tanzania's PLANREP budgeting and reporting tool to Ghana's primary health care program. The product of this collaboration is a system of budgeting, data visualization, and reporting that is known as the District Health Planning and Reporting Tool (DiHPART).

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the design and implementation processes (technical, procedures, feedback, maintenance, and monitoring) of the DiHPART tool in northern Ghana.

DESIGN

This paper reports on a qualitative appraisal of user reactions to the DiHPART system and implications of pilot experience for national scale-up. A total of 20 health officials responsible for financial planning operations were drawn from the national, regional, and district levels of the health system and interviewed in open-ended discussions about their reactions to DiHPART and suggestions for systems development.

RESULTS

The findings show that technical shortcomings merit correction before scale-up can proceed. The review makes note of features of the software system that could be developed, based on experience gained from the pilot. Changes in the national system of financial reporting and budgeting complicate DiHPART utilization. This attests to the importance of pursuing a software application framework that anticipates the need for automated software generation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite challenges encountered in the pilot, the results lend support to the notion that evidence-based budgeting merits development and implementation in Ghana.

A survey of Ethiopian physicians' experiences of bedside rationing: extensive resource scarcity, tough decisions and adverse consequences

Background

Resource scarcity in health care is a universal challenge. In high-income settings, bedside rationing is commonly discussed and debated as a means to addressing scarcity. However, little is known about physicians’ experiences in resource-limited contexts in low- income countries. Here we describe physicians’ experiences regarding scarcity of resources, bedside rationing, use of various strategies to save resources, and perceptions of the consequences of rationing in Ethiopia.

Methods

A national survey was conducted amongst physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling in six regions. All physicians in the selected hospitals were invited to respond to a self-administered questionnaire. Data were weighted and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

In total, 587 physicians responded (91 % response rate). The majority had experienced system-wide shortages of various types of medical services. The services most frequently reported to be in short supply, either daily or weekly, were access to surgery, specialist and intensive care units, drug prescriptions and admission to hospital (52, 49, 46, 47 and 46 % respectively). The most common rationing strategies used daily or weekly were limiting laboratory tests, hospital drugs, radiological investigations and providing second best treatment (47, 47, 47 and 39 % respectively). Availability of institutional or national guidelines for whom to see and treat first was lacking. Almost all respondents had witnessed different adverse consequences of resource scarcity; 54 % reported seeing patients who, in their estimation, had died due to resource scarcity. Almost 9 out of 10 physicians were so troubled by limited resources that they often regretted their choice of profession.

Conclusion

This study provides the first glimpses of the untold story of resource shortage and bedside rationing in Ethiopia. Physicians encounter numerous dilemmas due to resource scarcity, and they report they lack adequate guidance for how to handle them. The consequences for patients and the professionals are substantial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1131-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Health care decision making requires making resource allocation decisions among programs, services, and technologies that all compete for a finite resource pool. Methods of priority setting that use explicitly defined criteria can aid health care decision makers in arriving at funding decisions in a transparent and systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature and examine the use of criteria-based methods in ‘real-world’ health care allocation decisions.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to find examples of ‘real-world’ priority setting exercises that used explicit criteria to guide decision-making.

Results

We found thirty-three examples in the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using a variety of methods and criteria. Program effectiveness, equity, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and the number of beneficiaries emerged as the most frequently-used decision criteria. The relative importance of criteria in the ‘real-world’ trials differed from the frequency in preference elicitation exercises. Neither the decision-making method used, nor the relative economic strength of the country in which the exercise took place, appeared to have a strong effect on the type of criteria chosen.

Conclusions

Health care decisions are made based on criteria related both to the health need of the population and the organizational context of the decision. Following issues related to effectiveness and affordability, ethical issues such as equity and accessibility are commonly identified as important criteria in health care resource allocation decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to gather qualitative and quantitative data on criteria considered by healthcare decision makers.

METHODS

Using snowball sampling and an online questionnaire with forty-three criteria organized into ten clusters, decision makers were invited by an international task force to report which criteria they consider when making decisions on healthcare interventions in their context. Respondents reported whether each criterion is "currently considered," "should be considered," and its relative weight (scale 0-5). Differences in proportions of respondents were explored with inferential statistics across levels of decision (micro, meso, macro), decision maker perspectives, and world regions.

RESULTS

A total of 140 decision makers (1/3 clinical, 2/3 policy) from 23 countries in five continents completed the survey. The most relevant criteria (top ranked for "Currently considered," "Should be considered," and weights) were Clinical efficacy/effectiveness, Safety, Quality of evidence, Disease severity, and Impact on healthcare costs. Organizational and skill requirements were frequently considered but had relatively low weights. For almost all criteria, a higher proportion of decision makers reported that they "Should be considered" than that they are "Currently considered" (p < .05). For more than 74 percent of criteria, there were no statistical differences in proportions across levels of decision, perspectives and world regions. Statistically significant differences across several comparisons were found for: Population priorities, Stakeholder pressure/interests, Capacity to stimulate research, Impact on partnership and collaboration, and Environmental impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest convergence among decision makers on the relevance of a core set of criteria and on the need to consider a wider range of criteria. Areas of divergence appear to be principally related to contextual factors.

Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China--a stated preference analysis

BACKGROUND

Macroeconomic growth in China enables significant progress in health care and public health. It faces difficult choices regarding access, quality and affordability, while dealing with the increasing burden of chronic diseases. Policymakers are pressured to make complex decisions while implementing health strategies. This study shows how this process could be structured and reports the specific equity and efficiency preferences among Chinese policymakers.

METHODS

In total, 78 regional, provincial and national level policymakers with considerable experience participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative importance of six policy attributes describing equity and efficiency. Results from a conditional logistic model are presented for the six criteria, measuring the associated weights. Observed and unobserved heterogeneities were incorporated and tested in the model. Findings are used to give an example of ranking health interventions in relation to the present disease burden in China.

RESULTS

In general, respondents showed strong preference for efficiency criteria i.e. total beneficiaries and cost-effectiveness as the most important attributes in decision making over equity criteria. Hence, priority interventions would be those conditions that are most prevalent in the country and cost least per health gain.

CONCLUSION

Although efficiency criteria override equity ones, major health threats in China would be targeted. Multicriteria decision analysis makes explicit important trade-offs between efficiency and equity, leading to explicit, transparent and rational policy making.

Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis

This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria. THE GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOP THROUGH A SERIES OF EXPERT CONSULTATION MEETINGS AND INVOLVED THREE STEPS: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders. The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

Research for better health: the Panamanian priority-setting experience and the need for a new process

BACKGROUND

Panama is, economically, the fastest growing country in Central America and is making efforts to improve management mechanisms for research and innovation. However, due to contextual factors, the Panamanian Health Research System is not well developed and is poorly coordinated with the Health System. Likewise, despite recent efforts to define a National Health Research Agenda, implementing this agenda and aligning it with Panamanians' health needs remains difficult. This articles aims to review Panama's experience in health research priority setting by analyzing the fairness of previous prioritization processes in order to promote an agreed-upon national agenda aligned with public health needs.

METHODS

The three health research prioritization processes performed in Panama between 2006 and 2011 were analyzed based on the guidelines established by the four "Accountability for Reasonableness" principles, namely "relevance", "publicity", "revision", and "enforcement", which provide a framework for evaluating priority-setting fairness.

RESULTS

The three health research priority-setting events performed in Panama during the reference period demonstrated a heterogeneous pattern of decision-making strategies, stakeholder group composition, and prioritization outcomes. None of the three analyzed events featured an open discussion process with the scientific community, health care providers, or civil society in order to reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation makes evident the lack of a strategy to encourage open discussion by the multiple stakeholders and interest groups that should be involved during the priority-setting process. The analysis reveals the need for a new priority-setting exercise that validates the National Agenda, promotes its implementation by the National Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, and empowers multiple stakeholders; such an exercise would, in turn, favor the implementation of the agenda.

Budget- and priority-setting criteria at state health agencies in times of austerity: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

We examined critical budget and priority criteria for state health agencies to identify likely decision-making factors, pressures, and opportunities in times of austerity.

METHODS

We have presented findings from a 2-stage, mixed-methods study with state public health leaders regarding public health budget- and priority-setting processes. In stage 1, we conducted hour-long interviews in 2011 with 45 health agency executive and division or bureau leaders from 6 states. Stage 2 was an online survey of 207 executive and division or bureau leaders from all state health agencies (66% response rate).

RESULTS

Respondents identified 5 key criteria: whether a program was viewed as "mission critical," the seriousness of the consequences of not funding the program, financing considerations, external directives and mandates, and the magnitude of the problem the program addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

We have presented empirical findings on criteria used in state health agency budgetary decision-making. These criteria suggested a focus and interest on core public health and the largest public health problems with the most serious ramifications.

Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: lessons learned, available options and suggested steps

Setting priority for health programming and budget allocation is an important issue, but there is little consensus on related processes. It is particularly relevant in low resource settings and at province- and district- or "meso-level", where contextual influences may be greater, information scarce and capacity lower. Although recent changes in disease epidemiology and health financing suggest even greater need to allocate resources effectively, the literature is relatively silent on evidence-based priority-setting in low and middle income countries (LMICs). We conducted a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on health resource priority-setting in LMICs, focussing on meso-level and the evidence-based priority-setting processes (PSPs) piloted or suggested there. Our objective was to assess PSPs according to whether they have influenced resource allocation and impacted the outcome indicators prioritised. An exhaustive search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature published in the last decade yielded 57 background articles and 75 reports related to priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs. Although proponents of certain PSPs still advocate their use, other experts instead suggest broader elements to guide priority-setting. We conclude that currently no process can be confidently recommended for such settings. We also assessed the common reasons for failure at all levels of priority-setting and concluded further that local authorities should additionally consider contextual and systems limitations likely to prevent a satisfactory process and outcomes, particularly at meso-level. Recent literature proposes a list of related attributes and warning signs, and facilitated our preparation of a simple decision-tree or roadmap to help determine whether or not health systems issues should be improved in parallel to support for needed priority-setting; what elements of the PSP need improving; monitoring, and evaluation. Health priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs can involve common processes, but will often require additional attention to local health systems.

Cervical cancer and the global health agenda: Insights from multiple policy-analysis frameworks

Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths for women globally, with an estimated 88% of deaths occurring in the developing world. Available technologies have dramatically reduced mortality in high-income settings, yet cervical cancer receives considerably little attention on the global health policy landscape. The authors applied four policy-analysis frameworks to literature on global cervical cancer to explore the question of why cervical cancer may not be receiving the international attention it may otherwise warrant. Each framework explores the process of agenda setting and discerns factors that either facilitate or hinder policy change in cases where there is both a clear problem and a potential effective solution. In combination, these frameworks highlight a number of crucial elements that may be needed to raise the profile of cervical cancer on global health agendas, including improving local (national or sub-national) information on the condition; increasing mobilisation of affected civil society groups; framing cervical cancer debates in ways that build upon its classification as a non-communicable disease (NCD) and an issue of women's rights; linking cervical cancer screening to well-funded services such as those for HIV treatment in some countries; and identifying key global policy windows of opportunity to promote the cervical cancer agenda, including emerging NCD global health discussions and post-2015 reviews of the Millennium Development Goals.

Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance

South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment.Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders' views and evidences of all sorts.We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa.

Research priority setting for health policy and health systems strengthening in Nigeria: the policymakers and stakeholders perspective and involvement

Introduction

Nigeria is one of the low and middle income countries (LMICs) facing severe resource constraint, making it impossible for adequate resources to be allocated to the health sector. Priority setting becomes imperative because it guides investments in health care, health research and respects resource constraints. The objective of this study was to enhance the knowledge and understanding of policymakers on research priority setting and to conduct a research priority setting exercise.

Methods

A one-day evidence-to-policy research priority setting meeting was held. The meeting participants included senior and middle level policymakers and key decision makers/stakeholders in the health sector in Ebonyi State southeastern Nigeria. The priorities setting meeting involved a training session on priority setting process and conduction of priority setting exercise using the essential national health research (ENHR) approach. The focus was on the health systems building blocks (health workforce; health finance; leadership/governance; medical products/technology; service delivery; and health information/evidence).

Results

Of the total of 92 policymakers invited 90(97.8%) attended the meeting. It was the consensus of the policymakers that research should focus on the challenges of optimal access to health products and technology; effective health service delivery and disease control under a national emergency situation; the shortfalls in the supply of professional personnel; and the issues of governance in the health sector management.

Conclusion

Research priority setting exercise involving policymakers is an example of demand driven strategy in the health policymaking process capable of reversing inequities and strengthening the health systems in LMICs.