Dataset Information

Does the Narrative About the Use of Evidence in Priority Setting Vary Across Health Programs Within the Health Sector: A Case Study of 6 Programs in a Low-Income National Healthcare System.

ABSTRACT: Background: There is a growing body of literature on evidence-informed priority setting. However, the literature on the use of evidence when setting healthcare priorities in low-income countries (LICs), tends to treat the healthcare system (HCS) as a single unit, despite the existence of multiple programs within the HCS, some of which are donor supported.

Objectives: (i) To examine how Ugandan health policy-makers define and attribute value to the different types of evidence; (ii) Based on 6 health programs (HIV, maternal, newborn and child health [MNCH], vaccines, emergencies, health systems, and non- communicable diseases [NCDs]) to discuss the policy-makers' reported access to and use of evidence in priority setting across the 6 health programs in Uganda; and (iii) To identify the challenges related to the access to and use of evidence.

Methods: This was a qualitative study based on in-depth key informant interviews with 60 national level (working in 6 different health programs) and 27 sub-national (district) level policy-makers. Data were analysed used a modified thematic approach.

Results: While all respondents recognized and endeavored to use evidence when setting healthcare priorities across the 6 programs and in the districts; more national level respondents tended to value quantitative evidence, while more district level respondents tended to value qualitative evidence from the community. Challenges to the use of evidence included access, quality, and competing values. Respondents from highly politicized and donor supported programs such as vaccines, HIV and maternal neonatal and child health were more likely to report that they had access to, and consistently used evidence in priority setting.

Conclusion: This study highlighted differences in the perceptions, access to, and use of evidence in priority setting in the different programs within a single HCS. The strong infrastructure in place to support for the access to and use of evidence in the politicized and donor supported programs should be leveraged to support the availability and use of evidence in the relatively under-resourced programs. Further research could explore the impact of unequal availability of evidence on priority setting between health programs within the HCS.

SUBMITTER: Kapiriri L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7719212 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the Narrative About the Use of Evidence in Priority Setting Vary Across Health Programs Within the Health Sector: A Case Study of 6 Programs in a Low-Income National Healthcare System.

Kapiriri Lydia L

International journal of health policy and management 20201001 10

<h4>Background</h4>There is a growing body of literature on evidence-informed priority setting. However, the literature on the use of evidence when setting healthcare priorities in low-income countries (LICs), tends to treat the healthcare system (HCS) as a single unit, despite the existence of multiple programs within the HCS, some of which are donor supported.<h4>Objectives</h4>(i) To examine how Ugandan health policy-makers define and attribute value to the different types of evidence; (ii) B ...[more]

PMID: 32610742

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The pursuit of health equity is a priority in Ethiopia, especially with regards to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH). To date, there has been little characterization of the 'problem' of health inequity, and the normative assumptions implicit in the representation of the problem. Yet, such insights have implications for shaping the framing, incentivization, and implementation of health policies and their wider impact. Objective: In this article, we characterize how health (in)equity is represented as a policy issue, how this representation came about, and the underlying assumptions. Methods: We draw from Bacchi's 'what is the problem represented to be' approach to explore how national-level actors in the health sector constitute the problem. The data for our analysis encompass 23 key informant interviews with national health sector actors working in leadership positions on MNCH in Ethiopia, and six policy documents. Findings were derived from thematic and content analysis. Results: Health inequity is a normalized and inevitable concern that is regarded as actionable (can be altered) but not fully resolvable (can never be fully achieved). Operationally, health equity is viewed as a technocratic matter, reflected in the widespread use of metrics to motivate and measure progress. These representations are shaped by Ethiopia's rapid expansion of health services into rural areas during the 2000s leading to the positive international attention and funding the country received for improved MNCH indicators. Expanding the coverage and efficiency of health service provision, especially in rural areas, is associated with economic productivity. Conclusion: The metrication of health equity may detract from the fairness, justice, and morality underpinnings of the concept. The findings of this study point to the implications of global pressures in terms of maximizing health investments, and call into question how social, political, and economic determinants of health are addressed through broader development agendas.

Project description:BackgroundThe challenge of priority setting (PS) in health care within contexts of severe resource limitations has continued to receive attention. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) has emerged as a useful framework to guide the implementation of PS processes. In 2006, the AFR approach to enhance legitimate and fair PS was introduced by researchers and decision makers within the health sector in the EU funded research project entitled 'Response to Accountable priority setting for Trust in health systems' (REACT). The project aimed to strengthen fairness and accountability in the PS processes of health systems at district level in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya. This paper focuses on local perceptions and practices of fair PS (baseline study) as well as at the evolution of such perceptions and practices in PS following an AFR based intervention (evaluation study), carried out at district level in Kapiri-Mposhi District in Zambia.MethodsData was collected using in depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and review of documents from national to district level. The study population for this paper consisted of health related stakeholders employed in the district administration, in non-governmental organizations (NGO) and in health facilities.ResultsDuring the baseline study, concepts of legitimacy and fairness in PS processes were found to be grounded in local values of equity and impartiality. Government and other organizational strategies strongly supported devolution of PS and decision making procedures. However, important gaps were identified in terms of experiences of stakeholder involvement and fairness in PS processes in practice. The evaluation study revealed that a transformation of the views and methods regarding fairness in PS processes was ongoing in the study district, which was partly attributed to the AFR based intervention.ConclusionsThe study findings suggest that increased attention was given to fairness in PS processes at district level. The changes were linked to a number of simultaneous factors among them the concepts introduced by the present project with its emphasis on fairness and enhanced participation. A responsive leadership that was increasingly accountable to its operational staff and communities emerged as one of the key elements in driving the processes forward.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Competing priorities in health systems necessitate difficult choices on which health actions and investments to fund: decisions that are complex, value-based, and highly political. In light of the centrality of universal health coverage (UHC) in driving current health policy, we sought to examine the value interests that influence agenda setting in the country's health financing space. Given the plurality of Kenya's health policy levers, we aimed to examine how the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy decision-making and implementation shape discussions on health financing within the UHC framework. METHODS:A series of in-depth key informant interviews were conducted at national and county level (n?=?13) between April and May 2018. Final thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted to identify similarities and differences amongst stakeholders on the challenges hindering Kenya's achievement of UHC in terms of its the optimisation of health service coverage; expansion of the population that benefits from essential healthcare services; and the minimisation of out-of-pocket costs associated with health-seeking behaviour. RESULTS:Our findings indicate that the perceived lack of strategic leadership from Kenya's national government has led to a lack of agreement on stakeholders' interpretation of what is to be understood by UHC, its contextual values and priorities. We observe material differences between and within policy networks on the country's priorities for population coverage, healthcare service provision, and cost-sharing under the UHC dispensation. In spite of this, we note that progressive universalism is considered as the preferred approach towards UHC in Kenya, with most interviewees prioritising an equity-based approach that prioritises better access to healthcare services and financial risk protection. However, the conflicting priorities of key stakeholders risk derailing progress towards the expansion of access to health services and financial risk protection. CONCLUSIONS:This study adds to existing knowledge of UHC in Kenya by contextualising the competing and evolving priorities that should be taken into consideration as the country strategises over its UHC process. We suggest that clear policy action is required from national government and county governments in order to develop a logical and consistent approach towards UHC in Kenya.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.MethodsAn online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).ResultsWe found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.ConclusionsEfforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Project description:ObjectivesNational health insurance is now common in most developed countries. This study reviews the evidence and synthesizes the cost-effectiveness information for national health insurance or disability insurance programs across high-income countries.Data sourcesA literature search using health, economics and systematic review electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Econlit, RepEc, Cochrane library and Campbell library), was conducted from April to October 2015.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected relevant studies by applying screening criteria to the title and keywords fields, followed by a detailed examination of abstracts.Data extractionStudies were selected for data extraction using a quality assessment form consisting of five questions. Only studies with positive answers to all five screening questions were selected for data extraction. Data were entered into a data extraction form by one reviewer and verified by another.Evidence synthesisData on costs and quality of life in control and treatment groups were used to draw distributions for synthesis. We chose the log-normal distribution for both cost and quality-of-life data to reflect non-negative value and high skew. The results were synthesized using a Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 repetitions, to estimate the overall cost-effectiveness of national health insurance programs.ResultsFour studies from the United States that examined the cost-effectiveness of national health insurance were included in the review. One study examined the effects of medical expenditure, and the remaining studies examined the cost-effectiveness of health insurance reforms. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from US$23,000 to US$64,000 per QALY. The combined results showed that national health insurance is associated with an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$51,300 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Based on the standard threshold for cost-effectiveness, national insurance programs are cost-effective interventions.ConclusionsAlthough national health insurance programs have been introduced in most developed countries, only a few studies have examined their cost-effectiveness. All the selected studies revealed strong evidence to support health insurance programs or health reforms in the United States. The average ICER in this study is below the standard threshold for cost-effectiveness used in the US. The small number of relevant studies is the main limitation of this study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health sector priority setting in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) entails balancing between a high demand and low supply of scarce resources. Human Resources for Health (HRH) consume the largest allocation of health sector resources in LMICs. Health sector decentralization continues to be promoted for its perceived ability to improve efficiency, relevance and participation in health sector priority setting. Following the 2013 devolution in Kenya, both health service delivery and human resource management were decentralized to county level. Little is known about priority setting practices and outcomes of HRH within decentralized health systems in LMICs. Our study sought to examine if and how the Kenyan devolution has improved health sector priority setting practices and outcomes for HRH. METHODS:We used a mixed methods case study design to examine health sector priority setting practices and outcomes at county level in Kenya. We used three sources of data. First, we reviewed all relevant national and county level policy and guidelines documents relating to HRH management. We then accessed and reviewed county records of HRH recruitment and distribution between 2013 and 2018. We finally conducted eight key informant interviews with various stakeholder involved in HRH priority setting within our study county. RESULTS:We found that HRH numbers in the county increased by almost two-fold since devolution. The county had two forms of HRH recruitment: one led by the County Public Services Board as outlined by policy and guidelines and a parallel, politically-driven recruitment done directly by the County Department of Health. Though there were clear guidelines on HRH recruitment, there were no similar guidelines on allocation and distribution of HRH. Since devolution, the county has preferentially staffed higher level hospitals over primary care facilities. Additionally, there has been local county level innovations to address some HRH management challenges, including recruiting doctors and other highly specialized staff on fixed term contract as opposed to permanent basis; and implementation of local incentives to attract and retain HRH to remote areas within the county. CONCLUSION:Devolution has significantly increased county level decision-space for HRH priority setting in Kenya. However, HRH management and accountability challenges still exist at the county level. There is need for interventions to strengthen county level HRH management capacity and accountability mechanisms beyond additional resources allocation. This will boost the realization of the country's efforts for promoting service delivery equity as a key goal - both for the devolution and the country's quest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

Dataset Information

Does the Narrative About the Use of Evidence in Priority Setting Vary Across Health Programs Within the Health Sector: A Case Study of 6 Programs in a Low-Income National Healthcare System.

Publications

Does the Narrative About the Use of Evidence in Priority Setting Vary Across Health Programs Within the Health Sector: A Case Study of 6 Programs in a Low-Income National Healthcare System.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets