Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34843546›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Using allocative efficiency analysis to inform health benefits package design for progressing towards Universal Health Coverage: Proof-of-concept studies in countries seeking decision support.

Nicole Fraser-Hurt, Xiaohui Hou, Thomas Wilkinson, Denizhan Duran, Gerard J Abou Jaoude, Jolene Skordis, Adanna Chukwuma, Christine Lao Pena, Opope O Tshivuila Matala, Marelize Gorgens and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. 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. Article
  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

11 authors.

Nicole Fraser-HurtThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3065-8666
Xiaohui HouThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8219-996X
Thomas WilkinsonThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Denizhan DuranThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7026-0447
Gerard J Abou JaoudeUniversity College London Institute for Global Health, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6022-3036
Jolene SkordisUniversity College London Institute for Global Health, London, United Kingdom.
Adanna ChukwumaThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7873-7633
Christine Lao PenaThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Opope O Tshivuila MatalaThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Marelize GorgensThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, United States of America.
David P WilsonBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCountries are increasingly defining health benefits packages (HBPs) as a way of progressing towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Resources for health are commonly constrained, so it is imperative to allocate funds as efficiently as possible. We conducted allocative efficiency analyses using the Health Interventions Prioritization tool (HIPtool) to estimate the cost and impact of potential HBPs in three countries. These analyses explore the usefulness of allocative efficiency analysis and HIPtool in particular, in contributing to priority setting discussions. METHODS AND

findingsHIPtool is an open-access and open-source allocative efficiency modelling tool. It is preloaded with publicly available data, including data on the 218 cost-effective interventions comprising the Essential UHC package identified in the 3rd Edition of Disease Control Priorities, and global burden of disease data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. For these analyses, the data were adapted to the health systems of Armenia, Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe. Local data replaced global data where possible. Optimized resource allocations were then estimated using the optimization algorithm. In Armenia, optimized spending on UHC interventions could avert 26% more disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), but even highly cost-effective interventions are not funded without an increase in the current health budget. In Côte d'Ivoire, surgical interventions, maternal and child health and health promotion interventions are scaled up under optimized spending with an estimated 22% increase in DALYs averted-mostly at the primary care level. In Zimbabwe, the estimated gain was even higher at 49% of additional DALYs averted through optimized spending.

conclusionsHIPtool applications can assist discussions around spending prioritization, HBP design and primary health care transformation. The analyses provided actionable policy recommendations regarding spending allocations across specific delivery platforms, disease programs and interventions. Resource constraints exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic increase the need for formal planning of resource allocation to maximize health benefits.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingProof of Concept StudyResource AllocationUniversal Health InsuranceArmeniaHumansPublic PolicyZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID34843546
PMCPMC8629222

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.