ReviewInternational journal of health policy and management2015
Setting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation.
Review in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Ethical analysis of the public's perception towards human fetal and embryological collections.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Generative AI's Impact on the Mental Health of Medical Students: Scenario Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Unwrapping the Global Financing Facility: understanding implications for women's children's and adolescent's health through layered policy analysis.Global health action · 2025Review
- The Economic Rationale for Healthcare Reform.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Relational community engagement within health interventions at varied outcome scales.PLOS global public health · 2024Review
- Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: why, what and how.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- A qualitative evaluation of priority-setting by the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel in Kenya.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Health system efficiency in OECD countries: dynamic network DEA approach.Health economics review · 2021Article
- Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Optima TB: A tool to help optimally allocate tuberculosis spending.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Variation in the use of percutaneous coronary interventions among older patients with acute coronary syndromes: a multilevel study in Fukuoka, Japan.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients' Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Priority setting for health system strengthening in low income countries. A qualitative case study illustrating the complexities.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2021Article
- Priority-setting to integrate sexual and reproductive health into universal health coverage: the case of Malaysia.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2020Article
- A more responsive, multi-pronged strategy is needed to strengthen HIV healthcare for men who have sex with men in a decentralized health system: qualitative insights of a case study in the Kenyan coast.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2020Article
- How do decision-makers use evidence in community health policy and financing decisions? A qualitative study and conceptual framework in four African countries.Health policy and planning · 2020Article
- Accountability in medical education from theory to practice Tabriz 2018 statement: A step towards the implementation of this social necessity.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPriority setting in healthcare is a key determinant of health system performance. However, there is no widely accepted priority setting evaluation framework. We reviewed literature with the aim of developing and proposing a framework for the evaluation of macro and meso level healthcare priority setting practices.
methodsWe systematically searched Econlit, PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCOhost databases and supplemented this with searches in Google Scholar, relevant websites and reference lists of relevant papers. A total of 31 papers on evaluation of priority setting were identified. These were supplemented by broader theoretical literature related to evaluation of priority setting. A conceptual review of selected papers was undertaken.
resultsBased on a synthesis of the selected literature, we propose an evaluative framework that requires that priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels of the health system meet the following conditions: (1) Priority setting decisions should incorporate both efficiency and equity considerations as well as the following outcomes; (a) Stakeholder satisfaction, (b) Stakeholder understanding, (c) Shifted priorities (reallocation of resources), and (d) Implementation of decisions. (2) Priority setting processes should also meet the procedural conditions of (a) Stakeholder engagement, (b) Stakeholder empowerment, (c) Transparency, (d) Use of evidence, (e) Revisions, (f) Enforcement, and (g) Being grounded on community values.
conclusionAvailable frameworks for the evaluation of priority setting are mostly grounded on procedural requirements, while few have included outcome requirements. There is, however, increasing recognition of the need to incorporate both consequential and procedural considerations in priority setting practices. In this review, we adapt an integrative approach to develop and propose a framework for the evaluation of priority setting practices at the macro and meso levels that draws from these complementary schools of thought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.