Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low income countries to maximize the benefits of the available resources. This necessitates identification of priorities that should be funded. Evaluating prioritization processes would enable decision makers to assess the effectiveness of their processes, thereby designing intervention strategies. To date most evaluations have focused on cost-benefit analyses, which overlooks additional critical impacts of priority setting decisions. Kapiriri & Martin (2010) developed and validated a comprehensive framework for evaluating PS in low income countries. The objective of this paper report findings from a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV in Uganda, using the framework; and to identify lessons of good practice and areas for improvement. METHODS:This was a qualitative study based on forty interviews with decision makers and policy document review. Data were analysed using INVIVO 10, and based on the parameters in Kapiriri et al's evaluation framework. RESULTS:We found that HIV enjoys political support, which contributes to the availability of resources, strong planning institutions, and participatory prioritization process based on some criteria. Some of the identified limitations included; undue donor and political influence, priorities not being publicized, and lack of mechanisms for appealing the decisions. HIV prioritization had both positive and negative impacts on the health system. CONCLUSIONS:The framework facilitated a more comprehensive evaluation of HIV priority setting. While there were successful areas, the process could be strengthened by minimizing undue influence of external actors, and support the legitimate institutions to set priorities and implement them. These should also institute mechanisms for publicizing the decisions, appeals and increased accountability. While this paper looked at HIV, the framework is flexible enough to be used in evaluating priority setting for other health programs within similar context.

SUBMITTER: Kapiriri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6444420 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Kapiriri Lydia L Lee Na-Mee NM Wallace Lauren Jean LJ Kwesiga Brendan B

BMC public health 20190401 1

<h4>Background</h4>While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low i ...[more]

PMID: 30935380

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period.MethodsGeneralized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.ResultsAt the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases.ConclusionDuring the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas.

Project description:The aim of the ACE-Obesity Policy study was to assess the economic credentials of a suite of obesity prevention policies across multiple sectors and areas of governance for the Australian setting. The study aimed to place the cost-effectiveness results within a broad decision-making context by providing an assessment of the key considerations for policy implementation. The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) approach to priority-setting was used. Systematic literature reviews were undertaken to assess the evidence of intervention effectiveness on body mass index and/or physical activity for selected interventions. A standardised evaluation framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each intervention compared to a 'no intervention' comparator, from a limited societal perspective. A multi-state life table Markov cohort model was used to estimate the long-term health impacts (quantified as health adjusted life years (HALYs)) and health care cost-savings resulting from each intervention. In addition to the technical cost-effectiveness results, qualitative assessments of implementation considerations were undertaken. All 16 interventions evaluated were found to be cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD50,000 per HALY gained). Eleven interventions were dominant (health promoting and cost-saving). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the non-dominant interventions ranged from AUD1,728 to 28,703 per HALY gained. Regulatory interventions tended to rank higher on their cost-effectiveness results, driven by lower implementation costs. However, the program-based policy interventions were generally based on higher quality evidence of intervention effectiveness. This comparative analysis of the economic credentials of obesity prevention policies for Australia indicates that there are a broad range of policies that are likely to be cost-effective, although policy options vary in strength of evidence for effectiveness, affordability, feasibility, acceptability to stakeholders, equity impact and sustainability. Implementation of these policies will require sustained co-ordination across jurisdictions and multiple government sectors in order to generate the predicted health benefits for the Australian population.

Project description:BackgroundIn Mexico, the lifetime risk of dying from maternal causes is 1 in 370 compared to 1 in 2,500 in the U.S. Although national efforts have been made to improve maternal services in the last decade, it is unclear if Millennium Development Goal 5--to reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters by 2015--will be met.Methodology/principal findingsWe developed an empirically calibrated model that simulates the natural history of pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications in a cohort of 15-year-old women followed over their lifetime. After synthesizing national and sub-national trends in maternal mortality, the model was calibrated to current intervention-specific coverage levels and validated by comparing model-projected life expectancy, total fertility rate, crude birth rate and maternal mortality ratio with Mexico-specific data. Using both published and primary data, we assessed the comparative health and economic outcomes of alternative strategies to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. A dual approach that increased coverage of family planning by 15%, and assured access to safe abortion for all women desiring elective termination of pregnancy, reduced mortality by 43% and was cost saving compared to current practice. The most effective strategy added a third component, enhanced access to comprehensive emergency obstetric care for at least 90% of women requiring referral. At a national level, this strategy reduced mortality by 75%, cost less than current practice, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $300 per DALY relative to the next best strategy. Analyses conducted at the state level yielded similar results.Conclusions/significanceIncreasing the provision of family planning and assuring access to safe abortion are feasible, complementary and cost-effective strategies that would provide the greatest benefit within a short-time frame. Incremental improvements in access to high-quality intrapartum and emergency obstetric care will further reduce maternal deaths and disability.

Project description:BackgroundThe double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful.MethodsA mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n?=?19); meeting minutes (n?=?28)), media analysis (n?=?114) and stakeholder interviews (n?=?9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework.ResultsPriority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement.ConclusionsThis evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundDespite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda.MethodsFifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH.ResultsThere were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity.ConclusionsStronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets