scholarly journals Title Health Priority-Setting For Overseas Development Assistance in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Comparative Case Study of Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania

Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete ◽  
Yemane Berhane ◽  
Mary Mwanyika-Sando ◽  
Ayo Oduola ◽  
Yuning Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Priority setting process for the health care sector in low- and middle-income countries involves multiple agencies, each with their unique power, decision-making and funding mechanisms. Methods This paper developed and applied a new framework to analyze priority setting processes in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, from a scoping review of literature. Interviews were then conducted using a pre-determined interview guide developed by the research team. Transcripts were reviewed and coded based on the framework to identify what principles, players, processes, and products were considered during priority setting. Those elements were further used to identify where the potential capacity of local decision-makers could be harnessed. Results a framework was developed based on 40 articles selected from 6860 distinct search records. 21 interviews were conducted in three case countries from 12 institutions. Transcripts or meeting notes were analyzed to identify common practices and specific challenges faced by each country. We found that multiple stakeholders working around one national plan was the preferred approach used for priority setting in the countries studied. Conclusions Priority setting process can be further strengthened through better use of analytical tools, such as the one described in our study, to enhance local ownership and improve aid effectiveness.

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Di Giacomo

Despite the accumulation of evidence for the effects of approaches to chronic illness, methodological and analytical work is still needed to develop widely accepted evaluation methods that are scientifically sound and also practicable in routine settings. Given all the diversity and variability of disease management, a key issue for this work concerns the difficulties in establishing a useful “comparator” in settings where it is not practical or possible to execute an evaluation as a randomized controlled trial (RCT). This is indeed an important task because evaluation methods are a precondition to select efficient and effective programs, or components within a program that can address the growing burden of chronic and more in general health conditions. This is evident, in particular, when it comes to new technologies in medicine and implementation and evaluation, in the healthcare sectors, distinguishing low-income countries, on the one-hand, and those in other middle income countries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete ◽  
Yemane Berhane ◽  
Mary Mwanyika-Sando ◽  
Ayo Oduola ◽  
Yuning Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Decision making process for Official Development Assistance (ODA) for healthcare sector in low-income and middle-income countries involves multiple agencies, each with their unique power, priorities and funding mechanisms. This process at country level has not been well studied. Methods This paper developed and applied a new framework to analyze decision-making process for priority setting in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, and collected primary data to validate and refine the model. The framework was developed following a scoping review of published literature. Interviews were then conducted using a pre-determined interview guide developed by the research team. Transcripts were reviewed and coded based on the framework to identify what principles, players, processes, and products were considered during priority setting. Those elements were further used to identify where the potential capacity of local decision-makers could be harnessed. Results A framework was developed based on 40 articles selected from 6860 distinct search records. Twenty-one interviews were conducted in three case countries from 12 institutions. Transcripts or meeting notes were analyzed to identify common practices and specific challenges faced by each country. We found that multiple stakeholders working around one national plan was the preferred approach used for priority setting in the countries studied. Conclusions Priority setting process can be further strengthened through better use of analytical tools, such as the one described in our study, to enhance local ownership of priority setting for ODA and improve aid effectiveness.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e001209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Beyeler ◽  
Sara Fewer ◽  
Marcel Yotebieng ◽  
Gavin Yamey

Achieving many of the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals will not be possible without increased financing for global health research and development (R&D). Yet financing for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, with the exception of a one-time injection of Ebola funding. An important cause of the global health R&D funding gap is lack of coordination across R&D initiatives. In particular, existing initiatives lack robust priority-setting processes and transparency about investment decisions. Low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) are also often excluded from global investment initiatives and priority-setting discussions, leading to limited investment by these countries. An overarching global health R&D coordination platform is one promising response to these challenges. This analysis examines the essential functions such a platform must play, how it should be structured to maximise effectiveness and investment strategies for diversifying potential investors, with an emphasis on building LIC and MIC engagement. Our analysis suggests that a coordination platform should have four key functions: building consensus on R&D priorities; facilitating information sharing about past and future investments; building in accountability mechanisms to track R&D spending against investment targets and curating a portfolio of prioritised projects alongside mechanisms to link funders to these projects. Several design features are likely to increase the platform’s success: public ownership and management; separation of coordination and financing functions; inclusion of multiple diseases; coordination across global and national efforts; development of an international R&D ‘roadmap’ and a strategy for the financial sustainability of the platform’s secretariat.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e005759
Author(s):  
Sergio Torres-Rueda ◽  
Sedona Sweeney ◽  
Fiammetta Bozzani ◽  
Nichola R Naylor ◽  
Tim Baker ◽  
...  

ObjectivesCOVID-19 has altered health sector capacity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost data to inform evidence-based priority setting are urgently needed. Consequently, in this paper, we calculate the full economic health sector costs of COVID-19 clinical management in 79 LMICs under different epidemiological scenarios.MethodsWe used country-specific epidemiological projections from a dynamic transmission model to determine number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths over 1 year under four mitigation scenarios. We defined the health sector response for three base LMICs through guidelines and expert opinion. We calculated costs through local resource use and price data and extrapolated costs across 79 LMICs. Lastly, we compared cost estimates against gross domestic product (GDP) and total annual health expenditure in 76 LMICs.ResultsCOVID-19 clinical management costs vary greatly by country, ranging between <0.1%–12% of GDP and 0.4%–223% of total annual health expenditure (excluding out-of-pocket payments). Without mitigation policies, COVID-19 clinical management costs per capita range from US$43.39 to US$75.57; in 22 of 76 LMICs, these costs would surpass total annual health expenditure. In a scenario of stringent social distancing, costs per capita fall to US$1.10–US$1.32.ConclusionsWe present the first dataset of COVID-19 clinical management costs across LMICs. These costs can be used to inform decision-making on priority setting. Our results show that COVID-19 clinical management costs in LMICs are substantial, even in scenarios of moderate social distancing. Low-income countries are particularly vulnerable and some will struggle to cope with almost any epidemiological scenario. The choices facing LMICs are likely to remain stark and emergency financial support will be needed.


Author(s):  
Brendon Stubbs ◽  
Kamran Siddiqi ◽  
Helen Elsey ◽  
Najma Siddiqi ◽  
Ruimin Ma ◽  
...  

Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). TB multimorbidity [TB and ≥1 non-communicable diseases (NCDs)] is common, but studies are sparse. Cross-sectional, community-based data including adults from 21 low-income countries and 27 middle-income countries were utilized from the World Health Survey. Associations between 9 NCDs and TB were assessed with multivariable logistic regression analysis. Years lived with disability (YLDs) were calculated using disability weights provided by the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study. Eight out of 9 NCDs (all except visual impairment) were associated with TB (odds ratio (OR) ranging from 1.38–4.0). Prevalence of self-reported TB increased linearly with increasing numbers of NCDs. Compared to those with no NCDs, those who had 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 NCDs had 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.14–3.22), 4.71 (95%CI = 3.67–6.11), 6.96 (95%CI = 4.95–9.87), 10.59 (95%CI = 7.10–15.80), and 19.89 (95%CI = 11.13–35.52) times higher odds for TB. Among those with TB, the most prevalent combinations of NCDs were angina and depression, followed by angina and arthritis. For people with TB, the YLDs were three times higher than in people without multimorbidity or TB, and a third of the YLDs were attributable to NCDs. Urgent research to understand, prevent and manage NCDs in people with TB in LMICs is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document