Dataset Information

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy".

ABSTRACT: The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries' asks.

SUBMITTER: Isaranuwatchai W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6462203 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy".

Isaranuwatchai Wanrudee W Li Ryan R Glassman Amanda A Teerawattananon Yot Y Culye Anthony J AJ Chalkidou Kalipso K

International journal of health policy and management 20190201 2

The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global no ...[more]

PMID: 30980627

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDisease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3), published two model health benefits packages (HBPs). This study estimates the overall costs and individual component costs of these packages in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (lower-MICs).MethodsThis study reports on our Disease Control Priorities Cost Model (DCP-CM), developed as part of the DCP3 project to determine the overall costs of the 218 health sector interventions recommended in the model HBP termed essential universal health coverage (EUHC). Model inputs included data on intervention unit costs, demographic and epidemiological data to quantify the populations in need of specific interventions, baseline coverage indicators, and estimates of required health system costs to support direct service delivery. The DCP-CM was informed primarily by published estimates of economic costs of interventions measured from the health system perspective. We estimated counterfactual annual costs for the year 2015. We disaggregated costs according to intervention characteristics (delivery platform, delivery timing, and health system objective) and did one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses with determination of 95% credible intervals (Crls).FindingsAt 80% population coverage, the annual cost of EUHC would be US$79 (95% Crl 60-110) per capita (in 2016 US dollars) in LICs and US$130 (100-180) per capita in lower-MICs. As a share of 2015 gross national income (GNI), additional investments would require 8·0% (95% Crl 5·7-11·3) in LICs and 4·2% (2·9-5·9) in lower-MICs. A highest priority subpackage comprising 115 of the EUHC interventions would cost approximately half of these amounts (3·7% [2·6-5·3] of 2015 GNI in LICs and 2·0% [1·4-2·8] in lower-MICs). Mortality-reducing interventions would require around two-thirds of the overall package costs, with interventions to reduce mortality at age 5-69 years from non-communicable disease and injury comprising the highest share of total EUHC costs in both income groups (37·6% [37·2-37·9] in LICs and 43·0% [42·6-43·4] in lower-MICs). Interventions addressing chronic health conditions (requiring 45·5% [44·8-46·4] 2015 GNI for LICs and lower-MICs combined) and interventions delivered in health centres (requiring 49·8% [49·5-50·2] 2015 GNI for LICs and lower-MICs combined) would each comprise the plurality of costs.InterpretationImplementation of EUHC would require costly investment, especially in LICs. DCP-CM is available as an online tool that can inform local HBP deliberation and support efficient investment in UHC, especially as countries pivot towards non-communicable disease and injury care.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Trond Mohn Foundation, and Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Dataset Information

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy".

Publications

Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets