Search

OBJECTIVE: To explore stakeholders' acceptance of criteria for setting priorities for the health care system in Uganda. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was used. It was distributed to health workers, planners and administrators working in all levels of the Ugandan health care system. It was also distributed to members of the public. Participants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with 18 criteria that could be used to set priorities for allocating health care. A total of 408 people took part. Data were entered and analysed using SPSS statistical software. Predetermined cut-off points were used to rank the criteria into three different categories: high weight (>66% of respondents agreed), average weight (33-66% of respondents agreed) and low weight (<33% of respondents agreed). We also tested for associations between respondents' characteristics and their degree of agreement with the criteria. FINDINGS: High-weight criteria included severity of disease, benefit of the intervention, cost of the intervention, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, quality of the data on effectiveness, the patients age, place of residence, lifestyle, importance of providing equity of access to health care and the community's views. The average-weight criteria included the patient's social status, mental features, physical capabilities, political views, responsibilities for others and gender. Low-weight criteria included the patient's religion, and power and influence. There were few associations between respondents' characteristics and their preferences. CONCLUSION: There was a high degree of acceptance for commonly used disease-related and society-related criteria. There was less agreement about the patient-related criteria. We propose that average-weight criteria should be debated in Uganda and other countries facing the challenge of distributing scarce health care resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Despite the increase in the number of clinical trials in low and middle income countries (LMICs), there has been little serious discussion of whether First in Human (FIH; phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials should be conducted in LMICs, and if so, under what conditions. Based on our own experience, studies and consultations, this paper aims to stimulate debate on our contention that for products meant primarily for conditions most prevalent in LMICs, FIH trials should preferably be done first in those countries. Discussion There are scientific and pragmatic arguments that support conducting FIH trials in LMIC. Furthermore, the changing product-development and regulatory landscape, and the likelihood of secondary benefits such as capacity building for innovation and for research ethics support our argument. These arguments take into account the critical importance of protecting human subjects of research while developing capacity to undertake FIH trials. Summary While FIH trials have historically not been conducted in LMICs, the situation in some of these countries has changed. Hence, we have argued that FIH should be conducted in LMICs for products meant primarily for conditions that are most prevalent in those contexts; provided the necessary protections for human subjects are sufficient.

Abstract Background Procedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity. Methods Systematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a low-income country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions. Results The study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%. Conclusion Evidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.

Abstract Background Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. However, there is lack of literature that describes and evaluates priority setting in these contexts. The objective of this paper is to describe priority setting in a teaching hospital in Uganda and evaluate the description against an ethical framework for fair priority setting processes – Accountability for Reasonableness. Methods A case study in a 1,500 bed national referral hospital receiving 1,320 out patients per day and an average budget of US$ 13.5 million per year. We reviewed documents and carried out 70 in-depth interviews (14 health planners, 40 doctors, and 16 nurses working at the hospital). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis employed the modified thematic approach to describe priority setting, and the description was evaluated using the four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness: relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement. Results Senior managers, guided by the hospital strategic plan make the hospital budget allocation decisions. Frontline practitioners expressed lack of knowledge of the process. Relevance: Priority is given according to a cluster of factors including need, emergencies and patient volume. However, surgical departments and departments whose leaders "make a lot of noise" are also prioritized. Publicity: Decisions, but not reasons, are publicized through general meetings and circulars, but this information does not always reach the frontline practitioners. Publicity to the general public was through ad hoc radio programs and to patients who directly ask. Revisions: There were no formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. Enforcement: There were no mechanisms to ensure adherence to the four conditions of a fair process. Conclusion Priority setting decisions at this hospital do not satisfy the conditions of fairness. To improve, the hospital should: (i) engage frontline practitioners, (ii) publicize the reasons for decisions both within the hospital and to the general public, and (iii) develop formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. In addition, capacity strengthening is required for senior managers who must accept responsibility for ensuring that the above three conditions are met.

Abstract Introduction Several studies carried out to establish the relative preference of cost-effectiveness of interventions and severity of disease as criteria for priority setting in health have shown a strong preference for severity of disease. These preferences may differ in contexts of resource scarcity, as in developing countries, yet information is limited on such preferences in this context. Objective This study was carried out to identify the key players in priority setting in health and explore their relative preference regarding cost-effectiveness of interventions and severity of disease as criteria for setting priorities in Uganda. Design 610 self-administered questionnaires were sent to respondents at national, district, health sub-district and facility levels. Respondents included mainly health workers. We used three different simulations, assuming same patient characteristics and same treatment outcome but with varying either severity of disease or cost-effectiveness of treatment, to explore respondents' preferences regarding cost-effectiveness and severity. Results Actual main actors were identified to be health workers, development partners or donors and politicians. This was different from what respondents perceived as ideal. Above 90% of the respondents recognised the importance of both severity of disease and cost-effectiveness of intervention. In the three scenarios where they were made to choose between the two, a majority of the survey respondents assigned highest weight to treating the most severely ill patient with a less cost-effective intervention compared to the one with a more cost-effective intervention for a less severely ill patient. However, international development partners in in-depth interviews preferred the consideration of cost-effectiveness of intervention. Conclusions In a survey among health workers and other actors in priority setting in Uganda, we found that donors are considered to have more say than the survey respondents found ideal. Survey respondents considered both severity of disease and cost-effectiveness important criteria for setting priorities, with severity of disease as the leading principle. This pattern of preferences is similar to findings in context with relatively more resources. In-depth interviews with international development partners, showed that this group put relatively more emphasis on cost-effectiveness of interventions compared to severity of disease. These discrepancies in attitudes between national health workers and representatives from the donors require more investigation. The different attitudes should be openly debated to ensure legitimate decisions.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world., Methods: We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization., Results: The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%., Conclusion: The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

COVID-19 responses internationally have depended on physical distancing policies to manage virus transmission, given the initial absence of treatments and limitations on vaccine availability. Different jurisdictions have different contexts affecting their responses such as past epidemic experience, ratings of epidemic preparedness, and income level. COVID-19 responses in African countries have not been well-studied. A qualitative multiple embedded case study design was used to examine the COVID-19 policies in South Africa and Uganda from January 2020 to November 2021. This study included a documentary review using government websites and reports, news articles, and peer-reviewed journal articles to obtain data on policy responses and contextual factors. Epidemiological data were collected from public sources. Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders were used to confirm findings and cover missing information. A comparative analysis was conducted to explore differences in implementation of different types of physical distancing policies and potential consequences of lifting or prolonging public health measures. South African and Ugandan policy responses included physical distancing measures such as lockdown, international travel bans, school closures, public transportation measures, and curfew, in addition to socioeconomic relief programs and vaccinations. Differences between jurisdiction policy responses existed in terms of overarching strategy, timing, and stringency. This study provided in-depth comparisons of COVID-19 policy responses and relevant contextual factors in South Africa and Uganda. The study showed how contextual factors such as population age, geographic distribution, and recent epidemic response experience can influence COVID-19 transmission and response. The study also showed differences in overall strategy, timing, and strictness of epidemic management policies in these jurisdictions. These findings suggest it may be important to have sustained, strict measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 and manage the course of a pandemic, which need to be further explored alongside other important social and economic pandemic outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Mohammad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Health planning and priority setting with a gender lens can help to anticipate and mitigate vulnerabilities that women and girls may experience in health systems, which is especially relevant during health emergencies. This study examined how gender considerations were accounted for in COVID-19 pandemic response planning in a subset of countries in Africa., Methods: Multi-country document review of national pandemic response plans (published before July 2020 and as of March 2022) from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia, supplemented with secondary data on gender representation on planning committees. A gender analysis framework informed the study design and the Morgan et al. matrix guided data extraction and analysis., Results: All plans reflected implicit and explicit considerations of the impacts of the pandemic responses on women and girls. Through a gender lens, the implicit considerations focused on ensuring safety and protections (e.g., training, access to personal protective equipment) for community and facility-based health care workers and broad engagement of the community in risk communication. The explicit gender considerations, reflected in a minority of plans, focused on addressing gender-based violence and providing access to essential services (e.g., sexual and reproductive health care, psychosocial supports), products (e.g., menstrual hygiene products) and social protection measures. Women were underrepresented on the COVID-19 planning committees in all countries., Conclusions: The plans reflected varying national efforts to develop pandemic responses that anticipated and reflected unique vulnerabilities faced by women, though subsequent plans reflected further consideration of gender-relevant impacts compared to initial plans. Embedding a gender lens in emergency preparedness planning furthers equity and could support anticipation and timely mitigation of negative outcomes for women and girls who are often further marginalized during health emergencies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted health systems and exacerbated pre-existing resource gaps in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO-EMRO). Active humanitarian and refugee crises have led to mass population displacement and increased health system fragility, which has implication for equitable priority setting (PS). We examine whether and how PS was included in national COVID-19 pandemic plans within EMRO., Methods: An analysis of COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of 12/22 countries in WHO-EMRO. We assessed the degree to which documented PS processes adhere to twenty established quality parameters of effective PS., Results: While all reviewed plans addressed some aspect of PS, none included all quality parameters. Yemen's plan included the highest number (9) of quality parameters, while Egypt's addressed the lowest (3). Most plans used evidence in their planning processes. While no plans explicitly identify equity as a criterion to guide PS; many identified vulnerable populations - a key component of equitable PS. Despite high concentrations of refugees, migrants, and IDPs in EMRO, only a quarter of the plans identified them as vulnerable., Conclusion: PS setting challenges are exacerbated by conflict and the resulting health system fragmentation. Systematic and quality PS is essential to tackle long-term health implications of COVID-19 for vulnerable populations in this region, and to support effective PS and equitable resource allocation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting., Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison., Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS., Discussion and Conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Globally, significant progress has been made in the realm of adolescent sexual and reproductive health. We conceptualised "last mile" adolescents as having two or more of the following factors of identity: refugee, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQIA+, out of school, rurally or remotely located, slum dwelling, incarcerated or previously incarcerated, HIV/AIDS infected, and living with a disability. We conducted a scoping review with an aim to synthesise evidence and identify research gaps in the literature pertaining to the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of last mile adolescents. We conducted searches in three databases (Embase, Global Health, and Medline). Fifty-four publications met our inclusion criteria. Our results revealed that the state of evidence on the SRHR of last mile adolescents is poor. Very few studies used qualitative and mixed-method inquiry. The number of studies carried out in North America, Europe, and Oceania were limited. We found insufficient disaggregated data with respect to SRHR-related knowledge, behaviour, and access to services. Adopting an intersectional lens is critical to uncover the multiplicative effects of last mile adolescents' factors of identity on their SRHR. National data systems should be strengthened to enable the collection of quality disaggregated data which can play a vital role in identifying SRHR inequities affecting last mile adolescents. Research priorities should be realigned to generate data globally on the SRHR of last mile adolescents whose lives are marked by intersecting vulnerabilities.

Background: Decentralization of healthcare decision-making in Uganda led to the promotion of public participation. To facilitate this, participatory structures have been developed at sub-national levels. However, the degree to which the participation structures have contributed to improving the participation of vulnerable populations, specifically vulnerable women, remains unclear. We aim to understand whether and how vulnerable women participate in health-system priority setting; identify any barriers to vulnerable women's participation; and to establish how the barriers to vulnerable women's participation can be addressed., Methods: We used a qualitative description study design involving interviews with district decision-makers (n=12), sub-county leaders (n=10), and vulnerable women (n=35) living in Tororo District, Uganda. Data was collected between May and June 2017. The analysis was conducting using an editing analysis style., Results: The vulnerable women expressed interest in participating in priority setting, believing they would make valuable contributions. However, both decision-makers and vulnerable women reported that vulnerable women did not consistently participate in decision-making, despite participatory structures that were instituted through decentralization. There are financial (transportation and lack of incentives), biomedical (illness/disability and menstruation), knowledge-based (lack of knowledge and/or information about participation), motivational (perceived disinterest, lack of feedback, and competing needs), socio-cultural (lack of decision-making power), and structural (hunger and poverty) barriers which hamper vulnerable women's participation., Conclusion: The identified barriers hinder vulnerable women's participation in health-system priority setting. Some of the barriers could be addressed through the existing decentralization participatory structures. Respondents made both short-term, feasible recommendations and more systemic, ideational recommendations to improve vulnerable women's participation. Integrating the vulnerable women's creative and feasible ideas to enhance their participation in health-system decision-making should be prioritized., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health workforce has experienced re-deployment from core functions such as health promotion, disease prevention, and health protection, to preventing and tracking the spread of COVID-19. With continued pandemic deployment coupled with the exacerbation of existing health disparities due to the pandemic, public health systems need to re-start the delivery of core public health programming alongside COVID-19 activities. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify strategies that support the re-integration of core public health programming alongside ongoing pandemic or emergency response., Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was used to guide this study. A comprehensive search was conducted using: a) online databases, b) grey literature, c) content experts to identify additional references, and d) searching reference lists of pertinent studies. All references were screened by two team members. References were included that met the following criteria: a) involved public health organizations (local, regional, national, and international); b) provided descriptions of strategies to support adaptation or delivery of routine public health measures alongside disaster response; and c) quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive designs. No restrictions were placed on language, publication status, publication date, or outcomes. Data on study characteristics, intervention/strategy, and key findings were independently extracted by two team members. Emergent themes were established through independent inductive analysis by two team members., Results: Of 44,087 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review. Study designs of included studies varied: descriptive (n = 8); qualitative (n = 4); mixed-methods (n = 2); cross-sectional (n = 1); case report (n = 1); single-group pretest/post-test design (n = 1). Included studies were from North America (n = 10), Africa (n = 4), and Asia (n = 3) and addressed various public health disasters including natural disasters (n = 9), infectious disease epidemics (n = 5), armed conflict (n = 2) and hazardous material disasters (n = 1). Five emergent themes were identified on strategies to support the re-integration of core public health services: a) community engagement, b) community assessment, c) collaborative partnerships and coordination, d) workforce capacity development and allocation, and e) funding/resource enhancement., Conclusion: Emergent themes from this study can be used by public health organizations as a beginning understanding of strategies that can support the re-introduction of essential public health services and programs in COVID-19 recovery., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps., Methods: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables., Results: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged., Conclusion: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Priority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries' pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country's economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Background: There is increasing acceptance of the importance of social values such as equity and fairness in health care priority setting (PS). However, equity is difficult to define: the term means different things to different people, and the ways it is understood in theory often may not align with how it is operationalized. There is limited literature on how development assistance partner organizations (DAP) conceptualize and operationalize equity in their health care prioritization decisions that affect low-income countries (LIC). This paper explores whether and how equity is a consideration in DAP priority setting processes., Methods: This was a qualitative study involving 38 in-depth interviews with DAPs involved in health-system PS for LICs and a review of their respective webpages., Results: While several PS criteria were identified, direct articulation of equity as an explicit criterion was lacking. However, the criterion was implied in some of the responses in terms of prioritizing vulnerable populations. Where mentioned, respondents discussed the difficulties of operationalizing equity as a PS criterion since vulnerability is associated with several varying and competing factors including gender, age, geography, and income. Some respondents also suggested that equity could be operationalized in terms of an organization not supporting the pre-existing inequities. Although several organizations' webpages identify addressing inequities as a guiding principle, there were variations in how they spoke about its operationalization. While intersectionalities in vulnerabilities complicate its operationalization, if organizations explicitly articulate their equity focus the other organizations who also have equity as a guiding principle may, instead of focusing on the same aspect, concentrate on other dimensions of vulnerability. That way, all organizations will contribute to achieving equity in all the relevant dimensions., Conclusions: Since most development organizations support some form of equity, this paper highlights a need for an internationally recognized framework that recognizes the intersectionalities of vulnerability, for mainstreaming and operationalizing equity in DAP priority setting and resource allocation. Such a framework will support consistency in the conceptualization of and operationalization of equity in global health programs. There is a need for studies which to assess the degree to which equity is actually integrated in these programs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Stakeholders play an important role in health priority setting, and their roles have been discussed in the literature, mainly in relationship to their power. An emerging body of literature is focusing on the legitimacy of the stakeholders. Using the case of the Uganda health system, the overall aim of this paper is to assess the utility of the salience stakeholder analysis framework in identifying the most salient stakeholders in health-care priority setting., Methods: This was a qualitative case study involving 57 key informant interviews with national and district level policy makers and a review of policy documents. Interview data were analyzed using QSR NVivo10 qualitative data analysis software. Analysis was guided by the salience stakeholder analysis framework., Findings: Among the eight groups of stakeholders identified by the respondents, the politicians were found to be the most salient stakeholders. However, stakeholders' salience varied depending on the type of decision, the nature of health issue and how and who tabled the health issue., Conclusion: The salience stakeholder analysis framework, originating from the business management and political science disciplines, provided a more comprehensive stakeholder analysis by supporting the concurrent consideration of power, legitimacy and urgency in stakeholder analysis for health care priority setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: This project was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). The funding agency did not participate in any aspect of the project and manuscript development., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Gene drive research is progressing towards future field evaluation of modified mosquitoes for malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa. While many literature sources and guidance point to the inadequacy of individual informed consent for any genetically modified mosquito release, including gene drive ones, (outside of epidemiological studies that might require blood samples) and at the need for a community-level decision, researchers often find themselves with no specific guidance on how that decision should be made, expressed and by whom. Target Malaria, the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Pan African Mosquito Control Association co-organised a workshop with researchers and practitioners on this topic to question the model proposed by Target Malaria in its research so far that involved the release of genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes and how this could be adapted to future studies involving gene drive mosquito releases for them to offer reflections about potential best practices. This paper shares the outcomes of that workshop and highlights the remaining topics for discussion before a comprehensive model can be designed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Delphine Thizy, Lea Pare Toe and Naima Sykes have interests that might be perceived as competing interests as they are working for Target Malaria, a not-for-profit project developing gene drive technologies to complement existing tools for malaria control. Similarly, Lydia Kapiriri, Abha Saxena and Paul Ndebele are currently serving as members of Target Malaria's independent ethics advisory committee. They have no other role in the Target Malaria project., (Copyright: © 2021 Thizy D et al.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

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., (© 2020 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Health systems are critical to the realisation of Universal Health Coverage. There has been insufficient attention to the evaluation of priority setting for health system strengthening within low income countries, including evaluation of the local capacity to implement priorities. This study evaluated the extent to which health system strengthening was prioritized in Uganda. The Kapiriri & Martin framework was used to evaluate health system priority setting from 2005-2015. A document analysis was triangulated with interview data (n = 67) from global, national and subnational stakeholders and analysed using content analysis. Health system strengthening was perceived to be circumvented by a lack of resources as well as influential actors with disease focused, rather than system-oriented, interests. There were defined processes with explicit criteria for identifying priorities and evidence was highly valued. But sub-optimal transparency and weak accountability often compromised the integrity of priority setting and contributed to stalling progress on health system strengthening and achieving health system outcomes. The strengths in the current planning processes should be harnessed. In addition, a systematic approach to priority setting, potentially through the establishment of an independent body, and stronger oversight mechanisms, would strengthen health system planning in this setting., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors., (© Operational Research Society 2020.)

Background: Despite 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., Methods: Fifty-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., Results: There 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., Conclusions: Stronger 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.

Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Lead author DT is a staff member of Target Malaria and played a substantial role in formulating this paper’s approach, collecting and analyzing relevant data, and preparing and submitting the manuscript for publication. All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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.

Priority-setting (PS) for health research presents an opportunity for the relevant stakeholders to identify and create a list of priorities that reflects the country's knowledge needs. Zambia has conducted several health research prioritisation exercises that have never been evaluated. Evaluation would facilitate gleaning of lessons of good practices that can be shared as well as the identification of areas of improvement. This paper describes and evaluates health research PS in Zambia from the perspectives of key stakeholders using an internationally validated evaluation framework., Methods: This was a qualitative study based on 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the PS exercises. An interview guide was employed. Data were analysed using NVIVO 10. Emerging themes were, in turn, compared to the framework parameters., Results: Respondents reported that, while the Zambian political, economic, social and cultural context was conducive, there was a lack of co-ordination of funding sources, partners and research priorities. Although participatory, the process lacked community involvement, dissemination strategies and appeals mechanisms. Limited funding hampered implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Research was largely driven by the research funders., Conclusions: Although there is apparent commitment to health research in Zambia, health research PS is limited by lack of funding, and consistently used explicit and fair processes. The designated national research organisation and the availability of tools that have been validated and pilot tested within Zambia provide an opportunity for focused capacity strengthening for systematic prioritisation, monitoring and evaluation. The utility of the evaluation framework in Zambia could indicate potential usefulness in similar low-income countries.

Summary: While there is increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries. This paper fills this gap by identifying and discussing the roles and legitimacy of different stakeholders (including the public and patients) involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; identifying the barriers to public participation and proposing improvement strategies.We interviewed 28 policy makers and practitioners who had participated in the national level health research priority setting in Zambia. Reported participants in health research priority setting included research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. Research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's lack of education, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation of people from rural areas, women and young professionals was also limited.While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, there's limited public/patient involvement. Public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated and incentives availed to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts., Abstract: Background Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting contributes to the legitimacy and acceptability of the priorities. Hence legitimate priority setting should involve a broad representation of stakeholders including the public. While there is a growing body of literature on health research prioritization in low income countries, there is a paucity of literature reporting on stakeholder involvement in the process. The objectives of this paper are to; 1) identify the stakeholders who were involved in the health research priority setting process in Zambia; 2) discuss the roles and perceived legitimacy of the stakeholders and analyze the degree to which patients/ public was involved; 3) To discuss some of the barriers to stakeholder participation in Zambia and similar contexts and to propose improvement strategies. Methods This was a qualitative study involving 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the national level health research priority setting exercises in Zambia. An interview guide was used. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using INVIVO 10. Analysis of the Stakeholders' theme involved identifying the different dimensions of stakeholder involvement as discussed in the interviews. Results Identified stakeholders included; research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. We found that health research priority setting involved research users, researchers, research funders and the community/ public. However, research funders were thought to have undue influence while the public and patients were not effectively involved. While the respondents recognized the advantages of involving the public and patients, they were not effectively involved. This could be due to the public's limited understanding of the technicalities of priority setting, lack of resources to facilitate public involvement and limited skills to meaningfully engage the public. Participation from rural areas, women, and young professionals was also limited. Conclusions While there is a commitment to broad stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting, the public is left out. Efforts such as public education, availing more resources, and skills to meaningfully engage the public need to be explored. The undue influence of research funders should be mitigated through their direct involvement in the prioritization process and incentives to ensure that they align their research funding with the national priorities. These efforts would strengthen meaningful stakeholder engagement in health research prioritization within Zambia and other similar contexts., Competing Interests: Ethical clearance for the study was received from McMaster University and The University of Zambia Humanities and Social Science Ethics Committee, IRB # 00006464. Permission to conduct the study was received from the Ministry of Health in line with local guidelines.Not Applicable.The author declares that he/she has no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: The 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., Methods: A 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., Results: Priority 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., Conclusions: This 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.

Background: Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority., Methods: Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context., Results: Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context., Conclusion: While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

Background: While there have been efforts to develop frameworks to guide healthcare priority setting; there has been limited focus on evaluation frameworks. Moreover, while the few frameworks identify quality indicators for successful priority setting, they do not provide the users with strategies to verify these indicators. Kapiriri and Martin (Health Care Anal 18:129-147, 2010) developed a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. This framework provides BOTH parameters for successful priority setting and proposes means of their verification. Before its use in real life contexts, this paper presents results from a validation process of the framework., Methods: The framework validation involved 53 policy makers and priority setting researchers at the global, national and sub-national levels (in Uganda). They were requested to indicate the relative importance of the proposed parameters as well as the feasibility of obtaining the related information. We also pilot tested the proposed means of verification., Results: Almost all the respondents evaluated all the parameters, including the contextual factors, as 'very important'. However, some respondents at the global level thought 'presence of incentives to comply', 'reduced disagreements', 'increased public understanding,' 'improved institutional accountability' and 'meeting the ministry of health objectives', which could be a reflection of their levels of decision making. All the proposed means of verification were assessed as feasible with the exception of meeting observations which would require an insider. These findings results were consistent with those obtained from the pilot testing., Conclusions: These findings are relevant to policy makers and researchers involved in priority setting in low and middle income countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few initiatives that has involved potential users of a framework (at the global and in a Low Income Country) in its validation. The favorable validation of all the parameters at the national and sub-national levels implies that the framework has potential usefulness at those levels, as is. The parameters that were disputed at the global level necessitate further discussion when using the framework at that level. The next step is to use the validated framework in evaluating actual priority setting at the different levels.

The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC , the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.