整个政府加速青少年成功的办法:效率和资金考虑。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health policy and planning Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1093/heapol/czad112
Chris Desmond, Kathryn Watt, William E Rudgard, Lorraine Sherr, Lucie Cluver
{"title":"整个政府加速青少年成功的办法:效率和资金考虑。","authors":"Chris Desmond, Kathryn Watt, William E Rudgard, Lorraine Sherr, Lucie Cluver","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czad112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The multiple domains of development covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a practical challenge for governments. This is particularly acute in highly resource-constrained settings which use a sector-by-sector approach to structure financing and prioritization. One potentially under-prioritized solution is to implement interventions with the potential to simultaneously improve multiple outcomes across sectors, what United Nations Development Programme refer to as development 'accelerators'. An increasing number of accelerators are being identified in the literature. There are, however, challenges associated with the evaluation and implementation of accelerators. First, as accelerators have multiple benefits, possibly in different sectors, they will be undervalued if the priority setting is conducted sector-by-sector. Second, even if their value is recognized, accelerators may not be adopted if doing so clashes with any of the multiple competing interests policymakers consider, of which efficiency/social desirability is but one. To illustrate the first challenge, and outline a possible solution, we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the implementation of three sector-specific interventions to an accelerator, first using a sector-by-sector planning perspective, then a whole of government approach. The case study demonstrates how evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions sector-by-sector can lead to suboptimal efficiency rankings and overlook interventions that are efficient from a whole of government perspective. We then examine why recommendations based on a whole of government approach to evaluation are unlikely to be heeded. To overcome this second challenge, we outline a menu of existing and novel financing mechanisms that aim to address the mismatch between political incentives and logistical constraints in the priority setting and the economic evaluation evidence for cost-effective accelerators. These approaches to financing accelerators have the potential to improve efficiency, and in doing so, progress towards the SDGs, by aligning political incentives more closely with recommendations based on efficiency rankings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11020293/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whole of government approaches to accelerate adolescent success: efficiency and financing considerations.\",\"authors\":\"Chris Desmond, Kathryn Watt, William E Rudgard, Lorraine Sherr, Lucie Cluver\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapol/czad112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The multiple domains of development covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a practical challenge for governments. This is particularly acute in highly resource-constrained settings which use a sector-by-sector approach to structure financing and prioritization. One potentially under-prioritized solution is to implement interventions with the potential to simultaneously improve multiple outcomes across sectors, what United Nations Development Programme refer to as development 'accelerators'. An increasing number of accelerators are being identified in the literature. There are, however, challenges associated with the evaluation and implementation of accelerators. First, as accelerators have multiple benefits, possibly in different sectors, they will be undervalued if the priority setting is conducted sector-by-sector. Second, even if their value is recognized, accelerators may not be adopted if doing so clashes with any of the multiple competing interests policymakers consider, of which efficiency/social desirability is but one. To illustrate the first challenge, and outline a possible solution, we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the implementation of three sector-specific interventions to an accelerator, first using a sector-by-sector planning perspective, then a whole of government approach. The case study demonstrates how evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions sector-by-sector can lead to suboptimal efficiency rankings and overlook interventions that are efficient from a whole of government perspective. We then examine why recommendations based on a whole of government approach to evaluation are unlikely to be heeded. To overcome this second challenge, we outline a menu of existing and novel financing mechanisms that aim to address the mismatch between political incentives and logistical constraints in the priority setting and the economic evaluation evidence for cost-effective accelerators. These approaches to financing accelerators have the potential to improve efficiency, and in doing so, progress towards the SDGs, by aligning political incentives more closely with recommendations based on efficiency rankings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11020293/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czad112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czad112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可持续发展目标涵盖的多个发展领域对各国政府构成了实际挑战。这在资源高度受限的环境中尤其严重,这些环境采用逐部门方法来构建融资和确定优先顺序。一个可能被低估的解决方案是实施有可能同时改善跨部门多种结果的干预措施,即联合国开发计划署所说的发展“加速器”。越来越多的加速器在文献中被发现。然而,在评价和执行加速器方面存在着挑战。首先,由于加速器有多重好处,可能在不同的行业,如果逐个行业设置优先级,它们将被低估。其次,即使它们的价值得到认可,如果这样做与政策制定者所考虑的多种相互竞争的利益(效率/社会可取性只是其中之一)中的任何一个冲突,加速器也可能不会被采用。为了说明第一个挑战,并概述一个可能的解决方案,我们进行了成本效益分析,将三种针对特定部门的干预措施的实施与加速器的实施进行了比较,首先使用逐个部门的规划角度,然后使用整个政府方法。案例研究表明,逐个部门评估干预措施的成本效益可能导致效率排名次优,并忽视了从整个政府角度来看是有效的干预措施。然后,我们研究了为什么基于整个政府评估方法的建议不太可能被采纳。为了克服第二个挑战,我们概述了现有和新型融资机制的菜单,旨在解决优先事项设定中的政治激励和后勤限制与经济评估证据之间的不匹配问题。通过将政治激励与基于效率排名的建议更紧密地结合起来,这些为加速器融资的方法有可能提高效率,并在实现可持续发展目标的过程中取得进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Whole of government approaches to accelerate adolescent success: efficiency and financing considerations.

The multiple domains of development covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a practical challenge for governments. This is particularly acute in highly resource-constrained settings which use a sector-by-sector approach to structure financing and prioritization. One potentially under-prioritized solution is to implement interventions with the potential to simultaneously improve multiple outcomes across sectors, what United Nations Development Programme refer to as development 'accelerators'. An increasing number of accelerators are being identified in the literature. There are, however, challenges associated with the evaluation and implementation of accelerators. First, as accelerators have multiple benefits, possibly in different sectors, they will be undervalued if the priority setting is conducted sector-by-sector. Second, even if their value is recognized, accelerators may not be adopted if doing so clashes with any of the multiple competing interests policymakers consider, of which efficiency/social desirability is but one. To illustrate the first challenge, and outline a possible solution, we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the implementation of three sector-specific interventions to an accelerator, first using a sector-by-sector planning perspective, then a whole of government approach. The case study demonstrates how evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions sector-by-sector can lead to suboptimal efficiency rankings and overlook interventions that are efficient from a whole of government perspective. We then examine why recommendations based on a whole of government approach to evaluation are unlikely to be heeded. To overcome this second challenge, we outline a menu of existing and novel financing mechanisms that aim to address the mismatch between political incentives and logistical constraints in the priority setting and the economic evaluation evidence for cost-effective accelerators. These approaches to financing accelerators have the potential to improve efficiency, and in doing so, progress towards the SDGs, by aligning political incentives more closely with recommendations based on efficiency rankings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
期刊最新文献
Validity of a visual analogue scale to measure and value the perceived level of sanitation - evidence from Ghana and Mozambique. Care seeking during pregnancy: testing the assumptions behind Service Delivery Reform for Maternal and Newborn Health in rural Kenya. Organizational resilience and primary care nurses' work conditions and wellbeing: a multilevel empirical study in China. Examining sustained sub-national health system development: experience from the Western Cape province, South Africa, 1994-2016. Beliefs of Pentecostal pastors concerning the use of antiretroviral treatment among Pentecostal Christians living with HIV in a suburb of Cape Town-South Africa: a community health systems lens.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1