Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26804361›Full record

SynthesisHealth economics2016

Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks.

Virginia Wiseman, Craig Mitton, Mary M Doyle-Waters, Tom Drake, Lesong Conteh, Anthony T Newall, Obinna Onwujekwe, Stephen Jan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health economics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A situational and stakeholder analysis of health technology assessment in Zimbabwe.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Virginia WisemanUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Craig MittonThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Mary M Doyle-WatersThe University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Tom DrakeUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lesong ContehImperial College London, London, UK.
Anthony T NewallUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Obinna OnwujekweUniversity of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Stephen JanUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K010174/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy makers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasingly looking to develop 'evidence-based' frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. This paper synthesises and appraises the literature on methodological frameworks--which incorporate economic evaluation evidence--for the purpose of setting healthcare priorities in LMICs. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Econlit and PubMed identified 3968 articles with a further 21 articles identified through manual searching. A total of 36 papers were eligible for inclusion. These covered a wide range of health interventions with only two studies including health systems strengthening interventions related to financing, governance and human resources. A little under half of the studies (39%) included multiple criteria for priority setting, most commonly equity, feasibility and disease severity. Most studies (91%) specified a measure of 'efficiency' defined as cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Ranking of health interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis and generalised cost-effectiveness were the most common frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. Approximately a third of studies discussed the affordability of priority interventions. Only one study identified priority areas for the release or redeployment of resources. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empowerment of local decision-makers to act on this evidence.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesHumansQuality-Adjusted Life Yearsdeveloping countrieseconomic evaluationlow-income and lower-middle-income countriespriority setting

Identifiers

PMID26804361
PMCPMC5066677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.