Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545395›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2022

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

Lydia Kapiriri, Suzanne Kiwanuka, Godfrey Biemba, Claudia Velez, S Donya Razavi, Julia Abelson, Beverley M Essue, Marion Danis, Susan Goold, Mariam Noorulhuda and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Lydia KapiririDepartment of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1237-6369
Suzanne KiwanukaDepartment 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.
Godfrey BiembaNational Health Research Authority, Pediatric Centre of Excellence, PO Box 30075, Lusaka, Zambia.
Claudia VelezDepartment of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada.
S Donya RazaviDepartment of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada.
Julia AbelsonDepartment Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Communications Research Building, 2nd Floor, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
Beverley M EssueCentre for Global Health Research, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
Marion DanisDepartment of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20812, USA.
Susan GooldCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, 2800 Plymouth Road Building 14, G016, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Mariam NoorulhudaDepartment of Health, Aging & Society, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada.
Elysee NouvetSchool of Health Studies, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada.
Lars SandmanNational Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Iestyn WilliamsHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham B15 2RT, UK.

Funding

McMaster University
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

COVID-19Influenza, HumanDisease OutbreaksHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Africa regionCOVID-19effective priority settingequitynational plansPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID34545395
PMCPMC8500007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.