Priority setting and equity in COVID-19 pandemic plans: a comparative analysis of 18 African countries

Author:

Kapiriri Lydia1ORCID,Kiwanuka Suzanne2,Biemba Godfrey3,Velez Claudia1,Razavi S Donya1,Abelson Julia4,Essue Beverley M5,Danis Marion6,Goold Susan7,Noorulhuda Mariam1,Nouvet Elysee8,Sandman Lars9,Williams Iestyn10

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada

2. Department of Health Policy, Planning and Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Upper Mulago Hill Road PO Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda

3. National Health Research Authority, Pediatric Centre of Excellence, PO Box 30075, Lusaka, Zambia

4. Department Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Communications Research Building, 2nd Floor, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada

5. Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada

6. Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20812, USA

7. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, 2800 Plymouth Road Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

8. School of Health Studies, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada

9. National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

10. Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham B15 2RT, UK

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Funder

McMaster University

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference51 articles.

1. Crisis in Human Resources for health in the African Region;Africa, W. R. O;African Health Monitor,2007

2. Prioritizing the Rest of Healthcare in a Public Health Crisis;American Medical Association,2021

3. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis;Baltussen;Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation,2006

4. Resource allocation on the frontlines of public health preparedness and response: report of a summit on legal and ethical issues;Barnett;Public Health Reports,2009

5. Textbook of Global Health

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