Embedding MCDA in Priority-Setting Policy Processes: Experiences from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Author(s):  
Noor Tromp ◽  
Evelinn Mikkelsen ◽  
Roderik Viergever ◽  
Rob Baltussen
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e004549
Author(s):  
Cassandra Nemzoff ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Abha Mehndiratta ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Pitt ◽  
Anna Vassall ◽  
Yot Teerawattananon ◽  
Ulla K. Griffiths ◽  
Lorna Guinness ◽  
...  

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 2119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sripen Tantivess ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Nattha Tritasavit ◽  
Yot Teerawattananon

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is policy research that aims to inform priority setting and resource allocation. HTA is increasingly recognized as a useful policy tool in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a substantial need for evidence to guide Universal Health Coverage policies, such as benefit coverage, quality improvement interventions and quality standards, all of which aim at improving the efficiency and equity of the healthcare system. The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Thailand, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, are national HTA organizations providing technical support to governments in LMICs to build up their priority setting capacity. This paper draws lessons from their capacity building programs in India, Colombia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Such experiences suggest that it is not only technical capacity, for example analytical techniques for conducting economic evaluation, but also management, coordination and communication capacity that support the generation and use of HTA evidence in the respective settings. The learned lessons may help guide the development of HTA capacity in other LMICs.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (S2) ◽  
pp. 262-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Perry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 157 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Q. Wong ◽  
Nel Jason Haw ◽  
Jhanna Uy ◽  
Diana Beatriz Bayani

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to help low and middle income countries to develop their capacities for sector-wide priority setting. In 2016, we sought to use the OHT to aid the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), the national health insurer of the Philippines, in decisions to expand benefit packages using cost-effectiveness analyses. With technical support from the WHO, we convened health planning officers from the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) conduct generalized cost-effective analyses (GCEA) of selected un-financed noncommunicable disease interventions using OHT. We collected epidemiological and cost data through health facility surveys, review of literature such as cost libraries and clinical practice guidelines, and expert consultations. Although we were unable to use GCEA results directly to set policy, we learnt important policy lessons which we outline here that might help inform other countries looking to inform service coverage decisions. Additionally, the entire process and GCEA visualizations helped high-level policymakers in the health sector, who have traditionally relied on ad hoc decision making, to realize the need for a systematic and transparent priority-setting process that can continuously provide the evidence needed to inform service coverage decisions.


Author(s):  
Matthew S. McCoy ◽  
Harald Schmidt ◽  
Jennifer Prah Ruger ◽  
Marion Danis

Recent years have seen growing enthusiasm for public engagement in priority-setting. But despite this widespread support, there remains uncertainty both about the precise benefits of public engagement in priority-setting and about how public engagement activities should be structured in order to realize those benefits. The authors aim to move beyond generalizations about the value of public engagement by presenting several distinct rationales for engaging the public in priority-setting. The authors illustrate how these rationales can be achieved in practice using the case study of directly observed therapy for tuberculosis. They then highlight a number of practical challenges involved in implementing engagement activities and offer advice for addressing them. The chapter pays particular attention to challenges that arise in low- and middle-income countries, where efforts to engage the public face unique structural barriers.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 2383-2383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Parry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document