A critical review of priority setting in the health sector: the methodology of the 1993 World Development Report

Phnom Penh International University, Phnum Pénh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Health Policy and Planning (Impact Factor: 3). 04/1998; 13(1):13-31. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/13.1.13
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The 1993 World Development Report, Investing in Health, suggests policies to assist governments of developing countries in improving the health of their populations. A new methodology to improve government spending is introduced. Epidemiological and economic analyses from the basis for a global priority setting exercise, leading to a recommended essential public health and clinical services package for low- and middle-income countries. Ministries of Health in many countries have expressed an interest in designing a national package of essential health services, using the methodology. Given the apparent importance attached to the study and its far reaching potential consequences, this article provides an overview of the method, the main issues and problems in estimating the burden of disease as well as the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Strengths and weaknesses in the databases, value judgements and assumptions are identified, leading to a critical analysis of the validity of the priority setting exercise on the global level.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Burden of disease (BoD) studies have been conducted in numerous international settings since the early 1990's. Two national BoD studies have been undertaken in Australia, in 1998 and 2003, although neither study estimated the BoD specifically for Indigenous Australians. In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health formally commissioned the University of Queensland to undertake, in parallel with the second national BoD study, the "Burden of Disease and Injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" study, drawing on available data up to 2003. This paper is part of a broader NHMRC-funded project that examines the uptake of evidence to policy, using the 2007 Indigenous BoD (IBoD) study as a case study. This study aims to explore the policy context and narrative in the lead up to commissioning the IBoD study, focusing on relevant contextual factors and insights regarding the perspectives and anticipated value of the study by key stakeholders. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in late 2013 and early 2014, and the findings triangulated with 38 key informant interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, researchers, statisticians, policy advisors, and policymakers, conducted between 2011 and 2013. Contextual features which led to commissioning the IBoD study included widespread recognition of longstanding Indigenous disadvantage, lower life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, and the lack of an adequate evidence base upon which to determine priorities for interventions. Several anticipated benefits and expectations of key stakeholders were identified. Most informants held at least one of the following expectations of the study: that it would inform the evidence base, contribute to priority setting, and/or inform policy. There were differing or entirely contrasting views to this however, with some sharing concerns about the study being undertaken at all. The IBoD study, in concept, offered the potential to generate much desired 'answers', in the form of a quantified ranking of health risks and disease burden, and it was hoped by many that the results of the study would feed into determining priorities and informing Indigenous health policy.
    Health Research Policy and Systems 12/2015; 13(1):4. DOI:10.1186/s12961-015-0004-0 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Setting priority for health programming and budget allocation is an important issue, but there is little consensus on related processes. It is particularly relevant in low resource settings and at province- and district- or “meso-level”, where contextual influences may be greater, information scarce and capacity lower. Although recent changes in disease epidemiology and health financing suggest even greater need to allocate resources effectively, the literature is relatively silent on evidence-based priority-setting in low and middle income countries (LMICs). We conducted a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on health resource priority-setting in LMICs, focussing on meso-level and the evidence-based priority-setting processes (PSPs) piloted or suggested there. Our objective was to assess PSPs according to whether they have influenced resource allocation and impacted the outcome indicators prioritised. An exhaustive search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature published in the last decade yielded 57 background articles and 75 reports related to priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs. Although proponents of certain PSPs still advocate their use, other experts instead suggest broader elements to guide priority-setting. We conclude that currently no process can be confidently recommended for such settings. We also assessed the common reasons for failure at all levels of priority-setting and concluded further that local authorities should additionally consider contextual and systems limitations likely to prevent a satisfactory process and outcomes, particularly at meso-level. Recent literature proposes a list of related attributes and warning signs, and facilitated our preparation of a simple decision-tree or roadmap to help determine whether or not health systems issues should be improved in parallel to support for needed priority-setting; what elements of the PSP need improving; monitoring, and evaluation. Health priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs can involve common processes, but will often require additional attention to local health systems.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 02/2014; 102:190-200. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.056 · 2.56 Impact Factor


Available from