Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37905441›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Health technology assessment (HTA) readiness in Uganda: stakeholder's perceptions on the potential application of HTA to support national universal health coverage efforts.

Chrispus Mayora, Joseph Kazibwe, Richard Ssempala, Brenda Nakimuli, Aloysius Ssennyonjo, Elizabeth Ekirapa, Sarah Byakika, Tom Aliti, Timothy Musila, Mohamed Gad and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A situational and stakeholder analysis of health technology assessment in Zimbabwe.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

13 authors.

Chrispus MayoraDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Joseph KazibweDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8315-1503
Richard SsempalaDepartment of Economic Theory and Analysis, Makerere University School of Economics, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-5835
Brenda NakimuliDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Aloysius SsennyonjoDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Elizabeth EkirapaDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Sarah ByakikaDepartment of Planning, Financing and Policy, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Tom AlitiDepartment of Planning, Financing and Policy, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Timothy MusilaDepartment of Planning, Financing and Policy, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Mohamed GadDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anna VassallDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Francis RuizDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5183-3959
Freddie SsengoobaDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation PP1202541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth technology assessment (HTA) is an area that remains less implemented in low- and lower middle-income countries. The aim of the study is to understand the perceptions of stakeholders in Uganda toward HTA and its role in decision making, in order to inform its potential implementation in the country.

methodsThe study takes a cross-sectional mixed methods approach, utilizing an adapted version of the International Decision Support Initiative questionnaire with both semi-structured and open-ended questions. We interviewed thirty key informants from different stakeholder institutions in Uganda that support policy and decision making in the health sector.

resultsAll participants perceived HTA as an important tool for decision making. Allocative efficiency was regarded as the most important use of HTA receiving the highest average score (8.8 out of 10), followed by quality of healthcare (7.8/10), transparency (7.6/10), budget control (7.5/10), and equity (6.5/10). There was concern that some of the uses of HTA may not be achieved in reality if there was political interference during the HTA process. The study participants identified development partners as the most likely potential users of HTA (66.7 percent of participants), followed by Ministry of Health (43.3 percent).

conclusionInterviewed stakeholders in Uganda viewed the role of HTA positively, suggesting that there exists a promising environment for the establishment and operationalization of HTA as a tool for decision making within the health sector. However, sustainable development and application of HTA in Uganda will require adequate capacity both to undertake HTAs and to support their use and uptake.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PolicyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUgandaUniversal Health Insurancedecision makinghealth technology assessment (HTA)low and middle income countriesperception and experiencespriority settingUganda

Identifiers

PMID37905441
PMCPMC11579667

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.