ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023
Harnessing Country Experiences for Health Benefit Package Design: Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes and Experiences From the Joint Learning Network Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 10-Step Method for Fair Priority-Setting Processes: A Qualitative Case Study from Zanzibar.Health systems and reform · 2025Article
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amidst competing priorities for allocating finite health resources, using evidence-informed priority setting is a valuable tool for achieving population-level health goals. The paper by Baltussen et al comprehensively reports on the development of practical guidance for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) which will help with sustainability of programs aimed at universal health coverage (UHC). The authors' experience with the Joint Learning Network for UHC's (JLN) peer-to-peer learning platform on evidence-informed priority setting offers insights on the practical challenges faced by countries in health benefits package (HBP) design, especially to draw in actors to advocate for the priorities and values across the health system. Lessons harvested from JLN countries that have established such advisory committees can provide practical insights for countries in earlier stages of establishing a systematic process for HBP design. Peer-to-peer learning modalities among countries offer viable and effective approaches to institutionalizing EDPs and systematic priority setting.
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.