ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The assessing medical professionals' knowledge of autism spectrum disorders.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Temporal Trends and Geographic Associations of Circulatory Disease Hospitalizations Among Young Adults in Almaty and the Turkestan Region, 2018-2024.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Road toward institutionalizing health technology assessment in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi: The role of evidence-informed deliberative processes.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Understanding the extent of economic evidence usage for informing policy decisions in the context of India's national health insurance scheme: Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY).BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Stakeholders' Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Article
- Characteristics of High-Cost Beneficiaries of Prescription Drugs in Kazakhstan: A Cross-Sectional Study of Outpatient Data from 2022.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Moving Towards Effective and Efficient Implementation of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Trends in Avoidable Mortality in Kazakhstan From 2015 to 2021.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- The development of a roadmap for Health Technology Assessment implementation in Moldova.F1000Research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kazakhstan strives to obtain Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by using health technology assessment (HTA) for determining their health benefit package. This paper reports on employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design in Kazakhstan.
methodsThe Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan approved the operationalization and application of EDPs during March 2019 and December 2020. We used a combination of desk research, conducting HTA, online surveys as well as a face-to-face workshop in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, and two online workshops to prioritize 25 selected health technologies. During the latter, we tested two alternative approaches to prioritization: quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the use of decision rules.
resultsFor each of the HTA reports, evidence summaries were developed according to the decision criteria (safety, social priority disease, severity of disease, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence, financial risk protection and budget impact). When appraising the evidence, the advisory committee preferred using quantitative MCDA, and only when this would result in any controversy could decision rules be applied.
conclusionsDespite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the process will likely play a key role in determining an evidence-informed and transparent health benefit package.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.