The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan

Author:

Baltussen Rob1ORCID,Jansen Maarten1,Akhtar Syeda Shehirbano2,Bijlmakers Leon1ORCID,Torres-Rueda Sergio3ORCID,Khalid Muhammad4,Raza Wajeeha5,Huda Maryam6,Surgey Gavin1,Zulfiqar Wahaj4,Vassall Anna3ORCID,Zaidi Raza4,Siddiqi Sameen6ORCID,Alwan Ala7

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

2. Department of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

3. Department of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

4. Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad, Pakistan.

5. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

6. Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.

7. DCP3 Country Translation Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. Methods: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. Results: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. Conclusion: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

Publisher

Maad Rayan Publishing Company

Subject

Health Policy,Health Information Management,Leadership and Management,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Health (social science)

Reference25 articles.

1. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 3: Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for All at All Ages. 2016. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/.

2. Government of Pakistan. National Initative for Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.sdgpakistan.pk/.

3. Planning Commission Ministry of Planning, Development & Reform. Pakistan 2025: One Nation - One Vision. Islamabad. https://www.pc.gov.pk/uploads/vision2025/Pakistan-Vision-2025.pdf.

4. Disease Control Priorities Project, Third Edition. University of Washington. http://dcp-3.org/.

5. Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3