How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature

How did European countries set health priorities in response to the COVID-19 threat? A comparative document analysis of 24 pandemic preparedness plans across the EURO region

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. There are many tools and frameworks that have been designed to assist with the challenges of priority setting in health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which formal priority setting was evident in the pandemic plans produced by countries in the World Health Organisation's EURO region, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This compliments analysis of similar plans produced in other regions of the world. Twenty four pandemic preparedness plans were obtained that had been published between March and September 2020. For data extraction, we applied a framework for identifying and assessing the elements of good priority setting to each plan, before conducting comparative analysis across the sample. Our findings suggest that while some pre-requisites for effective priority setting were present in many cases - including political commitment and a recognition of the need for allocation decisions - many other hallmarks were less evident, such as explicit ethical criteria, decision making frameworks, and engagement processes. This study provides a unique insight into the role of priority setting in the European response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global comparative analysis of the the inclusion of priority setting in national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A reflection on the methods and the accessibility of the plans

BACKGROUND

Despite the swift governments' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the degree to which; priority setting (PS) was included in the pandemic plans and the pandemic plans were publicly accessible. This paper reflects on the methods employed in a global comparative analysis of the degree to which countries integrated PS into their COVID-19 pandemic plans based on Kapiriri & Martin's framework. We also assessed if the accessibility of the plans was related to the country's transparency index.

METHODS

Through a three stage search strategy, we accessed and reviewed 86 national COVID-19 pandemic plans (and 11 Canadian provinces and territories). Secondary analysis assessed any alignment between the readily accessible plans and the country's transparency index.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

71 national plans were readily accessible while 43 were not. There were no systematic differences between the countries whose plans were readily available and those whose plans were 'missing'. However, most of the countries with 'missing' plans tended to have a low transparency index. The framework was adapted to the pandemic context by adding a parameter on the need to plan for continuity of priority routine services. While document review may be the most feasible and appropriate approach to conducting policy analysis during health emergencies, interviews and follow up document review would assess policy implementation.

A global comparative analysis of the criteria and equity considerations included in eighty-six national COVID-19 plans

Systematic priority setting (PS), based on explicit criteria, is thought to improve the quality and consistency of the PS decisions. Among the PS criteria, there is increased focus on the importance of equity considerations and vulnerable populations. This paper discusses the PS criteria that were included in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans, with specific focus on equity and on the vulnerable populations considered. Secondary synthesis of data, from a global comparative study that examined the degree to which the COVID-19 plans included PS, was conducted. Only 32 % of the plans identified explicit criteria. Severity of the disease and/or disease burden were the commonly mentioned criteria. With regards to equity considerations and prioritizing vulnerable populations, 22 countries identified people with co-morbidities others mentioned children, women etc. Low social-economic status and internally displaced population were not identified in any of the reviewed national plans. The limited inclusion of explicit criteria and equity considerations highlight a need for policy makers, in all contexts, to consider instituting and equipping PS institutions who can engage diverse stakeholders in identifying the relevant PS criteria during the post pandemic period. While vulnerability will vary with the type of health emergency- awareness of this and having mechanisms for identifying and prioritizing the most vulnerable will support equitable pandemic responses.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Barriers to Equitable Public Participation in Health-System Priority Setting Within the Context of Decentralization: The Case of Vulnerable Women in a Ugandan District

BACKGROUND

Decentralization of healthcare decision-making in Uganda led to the promotion of public participation. To facilitate this, participatory structures have been developed at sub-national levels. However, the degree to which the participation structures have contributed to improving the participation of vulnerable populations, specifically vulnerable women, remains unclear. We aim to understand whether and how vulnerable women participate in health-system priority setting; identify any barriers to vulnerable women's participation; and to establish how the barriers to vulnerable women's participation can be addressed.

METHODS

We used a qualitative description study design involving interviews with district decision-makers (n=12), sub-county leaders (n=10), and vulnerable women (n=35) living in Tororo District, Uganda. Data was collected between May and June 2017. The analysis was conducting using an editing analysis style.

RESULTS

The vulnerable women expressed interest in participating in priority setting, believing they would make valuable contributions. However, both decision-makers and vulnerable women reported that vulnerable women did not consistently participate in decision-making, despite participatory structures that were instituted through decentralization. There are financial (transportation and lack of incentives), biomedical (illness/disability and menstruation), knowledge-based (lack of knowledge and/or information about participation), motivational (perceived disinterest, lack of feedback, and competing needs), socio-cultural (lack of decision-making power), and structural (hunger and poverty) barriers which hamper vulnerable women's participation.

CONCLUSION

The identified barriers hinder vulnerable women's participation in health-system priority setting. Some of the barriers could be addressed through the existing decentralization participatory structures. Respondents made both short-term, feasible recommendations and more systemic, ideational recommendations to improve vulnerable women's participation. Integrating the vulnerable women's creative and feasible ideas to enhance their participation in health-system decision-making should be prioritized.

A Novel Approach to Promote Evidence-Based Development of District Maternal and Newborn Health Plans in Two States in India

Background:

Maternal and child health implementation plan development in districts of India lacks systematic process and capacity resulting in suboptimal health improvements. There is ineffective and limited participation and lack of autonomy to effect changes in district priorities.

Objectives:

Primary objective was to demonstrate a systematic planning approach to develop evidence-based district implementation plans for mothers and children.

Methods:

A planning tool named RAASTA (RMNCH + A Action Agenda using Strategic Approach for evidence-based district work plans) adapted from WHO (World Health Organization) program review tools was used in the states of Uttarakhand and Jharkhand. The tool was implemented in the two states for the development of implementation plans in a 6-step process by prioritizing district health goals; reviewing maternal, neonatal, child, and family planning intervention coverage; and linking them with activity implementation status; assessing strengths, and weaknesses of previous implementation plans and developing solutions based on current gaps in intervention coverage's.

Results:

Tool was used for capacity building of 59 participants and also identification of prioritized activities based on their available data. Several newer activities were identified. The districts mainstreamed them as action plans, many of which were incorporated in the state Program Implementation Plan for budgetary provisions under state NHM (National Health Mission) funds.

Conclusion:

The use of a tool facilitated the systematic development of evidence-based district implementation plans.

Resource Allocation in a National Dental Service Using Program Budgeting Marginal Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In any health system, choices must be made about the allocation of resources (budget), which are often scarce. Economics has defined frameworks to aid resource allocation, and program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA) is one such framework. In principle, patient and public values can be incorporated into these frameworks, using techniques such as willingness to pay (WTP). However, this has not been done before, and few formal resource allocation processes have been undertaken in dentistry. This study aimed to undertake a PBMA with embedded WTP values in a national dental setting.

METHODS

The PBMA process was undertaken by a panel of participant-researchers representing commissioners, dentists, dental public health staff, and academics. The panel reviewed current allocations and generated a set of weighted criteria to evaluate services against. Services to be considered for removal and investment were determined by the panel and wider discussion and then scored against the criteria. Values from a nationally representative WTP survey of the public contributed to the scores for interventions. Final decisions on removal and investment were taken after panel discussion using individual anonymous electronic voting.

RESULTS

The PBMA process resulted in recommendations to invest in new program components to improve access to general dentists, care home dentistry, and extra support for dental public health input into local government decisions. Disinvestments were recommended in orthodontics and to remove routine scaling and polishing of teeth.

DISCUSSION

The PBMA process was successful in raising awareness of resource allocation issues. Implementation of findings will depend on the ability of decision makers to find ways of operationalizing the decisions. The process illustrates practical aspects of the process that future dental PBMAs could learn from.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

This study illustrates a framework for resource allocation in dental health services and will aid decision makers in implementing their own resource allocation systems.

From policy to practice: prioritizing person-centred healthcare actions in the state of Victoria

Background

Meaningful involvement of consumers in healthcare is a high priority worldwide. In Victoria, Australia, a Partnering in Healthcare (PiH) policy framework was developed to guide health services in addressing consumer-focused healthcare improvements. The aim of this project was to identify priorities for improvement relating to the framework from the perspective of Victorian healthcare consumers and those who work in the healthcare sector.

Methods

A survey of Victorians representing key stakeholder groups was used to identify a “long list” of potential priorities, followed by a day-long summit to reduce this to a “short list” using explicit prioritization criteria. The survey was piloted prior to implementation, and diverse consumer groups and key health service providers were purposefully sampled for the summit.

Results

The survey (n = 680 respondents) generated 14–20 thematic categories across the proposed framework’s five domains. The summit (n = 31 participants, including n = 21 consumer representatives) prioritized the following five areas based on the survey findings: communication, shared decision-making, (shared) care planning, health (system) literacy and people (not) around the patient. These priorities were underpinned by three cross-cutting principles: care/compassion/respect, accountability and diversity.

Conclusion

Few studies have explicitly sought consumer input on health policy implementation. Adopting a codesign approach enabled the framework to be a shared foundation of healthcare improvement. The framework was subsequently launched in 2019. All Victorian health services are required to commit annually to improvement priorities against at least two framework domains.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00782-2.

Priority-setting to integrate sexual and reproductive health into universal health coverage: the case of Malaysia

Despite increasing calls to integrate and prioritise sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in universal health coverage (UHC) processes, several SRH services have remained a low priority in countries’ UHC plans. This study aims to understand the priority-setting process of SRH interventions in the context of UHC, drawing on the Malaysian experience. A realist evaluation framework was adopted to examine the priority-setting process for three SRH tracer interventions: pregnancy, safe delivery and post-natal care; gender-based violence (GBV) services; and abortion-related services. The study used a qualitative multi-method design, including a literature and document review, and 20 in-depth key informant interviews, to explore the context–mechanism–outcome configurations that influenced and explained the priority-setting process. Four key advocacy strategies were identified for the effective prioritisation of SRH services, namely: (1) generating public demand and social support, (2) linking SRH issues with public agendas or international commitments, (3) engaging champions that are internal and external to the public health sector, and (4) reframing SRH issues as public health issues. While these strategies successfully triggered mechanisms, such as mutual understanding and increased buy-in of policymakers to prioritise SRH services, the level and extent of prioritisation was affected by both inner and outer contextual factors, in particular the socio-cultural and political context. Priority-setting is a political decision-making process that reflects societal values and norms. Efforts to integrate SRH services in UHC processes need both to make technical arguments and to find strategies to overcome barriers related to societal values (including certain socio-cultural and religious norms). This is particularly important for sensitive SRH services, like GBV and safe abortion, and for certain populations.

Impact of Insomnia Symptoms on the Clinical Presentation of Depressive Symptoms: A Cross-Sectional Population Study

Objective: Insomnia and depression are prevalent disorders that often co-occur. This study aimed to investigate the impact of clinically significant insomnia symptoms on the prevalence and clinical presentation of clinically significant depressive symptoms and vice versa. Methods: This study used data from the Korean Headache-Sleep Study (KHSS), a nationwide cross-sectional population-based survey regarding headache and sleep. Clinically significant insomnia symptoms were defined as Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) scores ≥ 10 and clinically significant depressive symptoms were defined as Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥ 10, respectively. We referred clinically significant insomnia symptoms and clinically significant depressive symptoms as insomnia symptoms and depressive symptoms, respectively. Results: Of 2,695 participants, 290 (10.8%) and 116 (4.3%) were classified as having insomnia and depressive symptoms, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was higher among participants with insomnia symptoms than in those without insomnia symptoms (25.9 vs. 1.7%, respectively, P < 0.001). Among participants with depressive symptoms, the PHQ-9 scores were not significantly different between participants with and without insomnia symptoms (P = 0.124). The prevalence of insomnia symptoms was significantly higher among participants with depressive symptoms than in those without depressive symptoms (64.7 vs. 8.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). The ISI scores were significantly higher among participants with insomnia and depressive symptoms than in participants with insomnia symptoms alone (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Participants with depressive symptoms had a higher risk of insomnia symptoms than did those without depressive symptoms. The severity of depressive symptoms did not significantly differ based on insomnia symptoms among participants with depressive symptoms; however, the severity of insomnia symptoms was significantly higher in participants with depressive symptoms than in those without depressive symptoms.

Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Priority-setting dilemmas arise when trade-offs must be made regarding the kinds of services that should be provided and to whom, thereby withholding other services from individuals or groups that could benefit from them. Currently, it is practically impossible for lower-income countries to provide dialysis for all patients with kidney failure; however, the fundamental premise of the human right to health, while acknowledging the current resource constraints, is the progressive realization of access to care for all. In this article we outline the rationale for priority setting, starting with the global goal of achieving universal health coverage, the prerequisites for fair and transparent priority setting, and discuss how these may apply to expensive care such as dialysis. Priority is inherently a value-laden process, and cannot be whittled down to technical considerations of clinical or cost effectiveness alone. Fair and transparent priority setting should originate from population health needs, be based on evidence, and be associated with ethical values or principles. This requires effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. Once policies are developed and implemented, good oversight is crucial to ensure accountability and to provide iterative feedback such that the goals of universal health coverage may be progressively realized.

Addressing prioritization in healthcare amidst a global pandemic

Trade-offs abound in healthcare yet depending on where one stands relative to the stages of a pandemic, choice making may be more or less constrained. During the early stages of COVID-19 when there was much uncertainty, healthcare systems faced greater constraints and focused on the singular criterion of “flattening the curve.” As COVID-19 progressed and the first wave diminished (relatively speaking depending on the jurisdiction), more opportunities presented for making explicit choices between COVID and non-COVID patients. Then, as the second wave surged, again decision makers were more constrained even as more information and greater understanding developed. Moving out of the pandemic to recovery, choice making becomes paramount as there are no set rules to lean back into historical patterns of resource allocation. In fact, the opportunity at hand, when using explicit tools for priority setting based on economic and ethical principles, is significant.

Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due to growing expenditures, health systems have been pushed to improve decision-making practices on resource allocation. This study aimed to identify which practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) have been used in healthcare systems of high-income countries.

METHODS

A scoping literature review (2007-2019) was conducted to map empirical PSRA activities. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. That was complemented with a gray literature and horizontal scanning. A narrative synthesis was carried out to make sense of the existing literature and current state of PSRA practices in healthcare.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred eighty five references were found in the peer-reviewed literature and 25 papers were selected for full-review. We identified three major types of decision-making framework in PSRA: 1) Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA); 2) Health Technology Assessment (HTA); and 3) Multiple-criteria value assessment. Our narrative synthesis indicates these formal frameworks of priority setting and resource allocation have been mostly implemented in episodic exercises with poor follow-up and evaluation. There seems to be growing interest for explicit robust rationales and ample stakeholder involvement, but that has not been the norm in the process of allocating resources within healthcare systems of high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

No single dominate framework for PSRA appeared as the preferred approach across jurisdictions, but common elements exist both in terms of process and structure. Decision-makers worldwide can draw on our work in designing and implementing PSRA processes in their contexts.

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today’s severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda.

Potential Criteria for Frameworks to Support the Evaluation of Innovative Medicines in Upper Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Literature Review on Value Frameworks and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

Background

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a formal decision support framework, has been growing in popularity recently in the field of health care. MCDA can support pricing and reimbursement decisions on the macro level, which is of great importance especially in countries with more limited resources.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to facilitate the development of future MCDA frameworks, by proposing a set of criteria focusing on the purchasing decisions of single-source innovative pharmaceuticals in upper middle-income countries.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted on the decision criteria included in value frameworks (VFs) or MCDA tools. Scopus, Medline, databases of universities, websites of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, and other relevant organizations were included in the search. Double title-abstract screening and double full-text review were conducted, and all extracted data were double-checked. A team of researchers performed the merging and selection process of the extracted criteria.

Results

A total of 1,878 articles entered the title and abstract screening. From these, 341 were eligible to the full-text review, and 36 were included in the final data extraction phase. From these articles 394 criteria were extracted in total. After deduplication and clustering, 26 different criteria were identified. After the merging and selection process, a set of 16 general criteria was proposed.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the systematic literature review, a pool of 16 criteria was selected. This can serve as a starting point for constructing MCDA frameworks in upper middle-income countries after careful adaptation to the local context.

Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda

Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

How does priority setting for resource allocation happen in commissioning dental services in a nationally led, regionally delivered system: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with NHS England dental commissioners

OBJECTIVES

To understand approaches to priority setting for healthcare service resource allocation at an operational level in a nationally commissioned but regionally delivered service.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and a Framework analysis.

SETTING

National Health Service dentistry commissioning teams within subregional offices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All 31 individuals holding the relevant role (dental lead commissioner in subregional offices) were approached directly and from this 14 participants were recruited, with 12 interviews completed. Both male and female genders and all regions were represented in the final sample.

RESULTS

Three major themes arose. First, 'Methods of priority setting and barriers to explicit approaches' was a common theme, specifically identifying the main methods as: perpetuating historical allocations, pressure from politicians and clinicians and use of needs assessments while barriers were time and skill deficits, a lack of national guidance and an inflexible contracting arrangements stopping resource allocation. Second, 'Relationships with key stakeholders and advisors' were discussed, showing the important nature of relationships with clinical advisors but variation in the quality of these relationships was noted. Finally, 'Tensions between national and local responsibilities' were illustrated, where there was confusion about where power and autonomy lay.

CONCLUSIONS

Commissioners recognised a need for resource allocation but relied on clinical advice and needs assessment in order to set priorities. More explicit priority setting was prevented by structure of the commissioning system and standard national contracts with providers. Further research is required to embed and simplify adoption of tools to aid priority setting.

An ethical framework for evaluation of public health plans: a systematic process for legitimate and fair decision-making

OBJECTIVES

Given the increasing threats of communicable and non-communicable diseases, it is necessary for policy-makers and public health (PH) professionals to address ethical issues in health policies and plans. This study aimed to develop a practical framework for the ethical evaluation of PH programs.

STUDY DESIGN

A multidisciplinary team developed an ethical framework to evaluate PH plans from 2015 to 2017.

METHODS

In this study, the multi-method approach was used. First, a list of moral norms in PH policy and practice was drafted and completed in two interactive sessions. Then, the Delphi method was used for consensus about the structural components to be adopted in the framework. After developing the framework, its efficiency was assessed by evaluating Iran's Fourth Strategic Plan for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control.

RESULTS

The framework was developed in the following three sections: (i) determination of the general moral norms in PH practice and policy; (ii) five steps of evaluation; and (iii) a procedural evaluation step to ensure fair decision-making. The ratio of the ethical points of the PH plan increased by 46% after implementation of the framework, and the frequency of ethical points increased significantly after applying the framework (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The application of the framework for the ethical evaluation of various PH programs ensures a comprehensive and scientific-deliberative decision-making process, while also contributing to the development of the framework.

Resource allocation in NHS dentistry: recognition of societal preferences (RAINDROP): study protocol

Background

Resources in any healthcare systems are scarce relative to need and therefore choices need to be made which often involve difficult decisions about the best allocation of these resources. One pragmatic and robust tool to aid resource allocation is Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but there is mixed evidence on its uptake and effectiveness. Furthermore, there is also no evidence on the incorporation of the preferences of a large and representative sample of the general public into such a process. The study therefore aims to undertake, evaluate and refine a PBMA process within the exemplar of NHS dentistry in England whilst also using an established methodology (Willingness to Pay (WTP)) to systematically gather views from a representative sample of the public.

Methods

Stakeholders including service buyers (commissioners), dentists, dental public health representatives and patient representatives will be recruited to participate in a PBMA process involving defining current spend, agreeing criteria to judge services/interventions, defining areas for investment and disinvestment, rating these areas against the criteria and making final recommendations. The process will be refined based on participatory action research principles and evaluated through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and observation of the process by the research team. In parallel a representative sample of English adults will be recruited to complete a series of four surveys including WTP valuations of programmes being considered by the PBMA panel. In addition a methodological experiment comparing two ways of eliciting WTP will be undertaken.

Discussion

The project will allow the PBMA process and particularly the use of WTP within it to be investigated and developed. There will be challenges around engagement with the task by the panel undertaking it and with the outputs by stakeholders but careful relationship building will help to mitigate this. The large volume of data will be managed through careful segmenting of the analysis and the use of the well-established Framework approach to qualitative data analysis. WTP has various potential biases but the elicitation will be carefully designed to minimise these and some methodological investigation will take place.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3302-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Describing and evaluating healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya

BACKGROUND

Healthcare priority setting research has focused at the macro (national) and micro (patient level), while there is a dearth of literature on meso-level (subnational/regional) priority setting practices. In this study, we aimed to describe and evaluate healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya.

METHODS

We used a qualitative case study approach to examine the planning and budgeting processes in 2 counties in Kenya. We collected the data through in-depth interviews of senior managers, middle-level managers, frontline managers, and health partners (n = 23) and document reviews. We analyzed the data using a framework approach.

FINDINGS

The planning and budgeting processes in both counties were characterized by misalignment and the dominance of informal considerations in decision making. When evaluated against consequential conditions, efficiency and equity considerations were not incorporated in the planning and budgeting processes. Stakeholders were more satisfied and understood the planning process compared with the budgeting process. There was a lack of shifting of priorities and unsatisfactory implementation of decisions. Against procedural conditions, the planning process was more inclusive and transparent and stakeholders were more empowered compared with the budgeting process. There was ineffective use of data, lack of provisions for appeal and revisions, and limited mechanisms for incorporating community values in the planning and budgeting.

CONCLUSION

County governments can improve the planning and budgeting processes by aligning them, implementing a systematic priority setting process with explicit resource allocation criteria, and adhering to both consequential and procedural aspects of an ideal priority setting process.

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.