Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31180489›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2019

Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda.

S Donya Razavi, Lydia Kapiriri, Julia Abelson, Michael Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Operationalising Patient Engagement Through the Alberta Cancer Diagnosis Initiative: Recruitment Strategies for Diverse Populations in Health System Improvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

S Donya RazaviDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lydia KapiririDepartment of Health, Aging and Society, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Julia AbelsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Michael WilsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster Health Forum, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting.

Indexed as

Health ResourcesPoliticsStakeholder ParticipationDeveloping CountriesHealth PrioritiesHumansPovertyQualitative ResearchUgandalow-income countries (LICs)priority settingStakeholder participationUganda

Identifiers

PMID31180489
PMCPMC6736199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.