Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39099513›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of health policy and management2024

The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.

Sergio Torres-Rueda, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, Nichola Kitson, Muhammad Khalid, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Maarten Jansen, Wajeeha Raza, Maryam Huda, Frank Sandmann and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of health policy and management, 2024. 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. Review
  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

13 authors.

Sergio Torres-RuedaDepartment of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6335-6392
Anna VassallDepartment of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2911-1375
Raza ZaidiMinistry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0002-1201-3653
Nichola KitsonDepartment of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Muhammad KhalidMinistry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0000-0322-178X
Wahaj ZulfiqarMinistry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-5670-2795
Maarten JansenDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wajeeha RazaCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4690-7727
Maryam HudaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-7409-4965
Frank SandmannDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5641-1931
Rob BaltussenDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8364-2847
Sameen SiddiqiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-8289-0964
Ala AlwanDCP3 Country Translation Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-7054-3328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made.

methodsQuantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness.

resultsValue for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion.

conclusionEvidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesHealth ServicesCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDecision MakingHumansPakistanQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-EffectivenessDecision CriteriaEssential Packages of Health ServicesHealth Benefit PackagesPakistanPriority Setting

Identifiers

PMID39099513
PMCPMC11608344

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.