Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32654436›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022

CHAT SA: Modification of a Public Engagement Tool for Priority Setting for a South African Rural Context.

Aviva Tugendhaft, Marion Danis, Nicola Christofides, Kathleen Kahn, Agnes Erzse, Marthe Gold, Rhian Twine, Audrey Khosa, Karen Hofman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Aviva TugendhaftSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4104-4299
Marion DanisDepartment of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4749-4568
Nicola ChristofidesSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-3559-6401
Kathleen KahnMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit - Agincourt, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3339-3931
Agnes ErzseSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Marthe GoldNew York Academy of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Rhian TwineMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit - Agincourt, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-0766-6556
Audrey KhosaMRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit - Agincourt, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Karen HofmanSAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9512-7220

Funding

Engaging the public in priorities for health through the CHAT exerciseZIACL010529 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI DANIS, MARION · 2009 to 2023
$0k
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, as countries move towards universal health coverage (UHC), public participation in decisionmaking is particularly valuable to inform difficult decisions about priority setting and resource allocation. In South Africa (SA), which is moving towards UHC, public participation in decision-making is entrenched in policy documents yet practical applications are lacking. Engagement methods that are deliberative could be useful in ensuring the public participates in the priority setting process that is evidence-based, ethical, legitimate, sustainable and inclusive. Methods modified for the country context may be more relevant and effective. To prepare for such a deliberative process in SA, we aimed to modify a specific deliberative engagement tool - the CHAT (Choosing All Together) tool for use in a rural setting.

methodsDesktop review of published literature and policy documents, as well as 3 focus groups and modified Delphi method were conducted to identify health topics/issues and related interventions appropriate for a rural setting in SA. Our approach involved a high degree of community and policy-maker/expert participation. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Cost information was drawn from various national sources and an existing actuarial model used in previous CHAT exercises was employed to create the board.

resultsBased on the outcomes, 7 health topics/issues and related interventions specific for a rural context were identified and costed for inclusion. These include maternal, new-born and reproductive health; child health; woman and child abuse; HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB); lifestyle diseases; access; and malaria. There were variations in priorities between the 3 stakeholder groups, with community-based groups emphasizing issues of access. Violence against women and children and malaria were considered important in the rural context.

conclusionThe CHAT SA board reflects health topics/issues specific for a rural setting in SA and demonstrates some of the context-specific coverage decisions that will need to be made. Methodologies that include participatory principles are useful for the modification of engagement tools like CHAT and can be applied in different country contexts in order to ensure these tools are relevant and acceptable. This could in turn impact the success of the implementation, ultimately ensuring more effective priority setting approaches.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesUniversal Health InsuranceAdministrative PersonnelChildFemaleHumansRural PopulationSouth AfricaPriority SettingPublic EngagementRural HealthSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID32654436
PMCPMC9278606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.