巴基斯坦利用循证审议程序设计基本保健服务包

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2023-10-24 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004
Rob Baltussen, Maarten Jansen, Syeda Shehirbano Akhtar, L. Bijlmakers, S. Torres-Rueda, Muhammad Khalid, Wajeeha Raza, M. Huda, Gavin Surgey, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, S. Siddiqi, A. Alwan
{"title":"巴基斯坦利用循证审议程序设计基本保健服务包","authors":"Rob Baltussen, Maarten Jansen, Syeda Shehirbano Akhtar, L. Bijlmakers, S. Torres-Rueda, Muhammad Khalid, Wajeeha Raza, M. Huda, Gavin Surgey, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, S. Siddiqi, A. Alwan","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. Methods: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. Results: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. Conclusion: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"197 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan\",\"authors\":\"Rob Baltussen, Maarten Jansen, Syeda Shehirbano Akhtar, L. Bijlmakers, S. Torres-Rueda, Muhammad Khalid, Wajeeha Raza, M. Huda, Gavin Surgey, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, S. Siddiqi, A. Alwan\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. Methods: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. Results: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. Conclusion: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"volume\":\"197 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004\",\"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":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8004","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

背景:疾病控制优先事项 3(DCP3)项目为巴基斯坦制定和实施全民健康保险基本卫生服务包(UHC-EPHS)提供长期支持。本文报告了 2019-2020 年期间在设计 EPHS 时所采用的优先事项确定过程,该过程采用了循证审议过程(EDPs)框架,这是一种优先事项确定工具,其明确目的是在制定一揽子健康福利时优化决策的合法性。方法:我们在荷兰举办的两次研讨会上规划了该框架的六个步骤,所有 DCP3 巴基斯坦合作伙伴都参加了研讨会(2019 年 10 月和 2020 年 2 月),他们于 2019 年和 2020 年在巴基斯坦国家层面实施了这些步骤。在实施之后,我们进行了一次半结构化在线调查,以收集参与全民健康福利一揽子计划设计的人员对优先级排序过程的看法。结果:EDP 框架的关键步骤是成立咨询委员会(涉及多个技术工作组 [TWGs] 和一个国家咨询委员会 [NAC] 的 150 多名成员)、确定决策标准(有效性、成本效益、可避免的疾病负担、公平性、财务风险保护、预算影响、社会经济影响和可行性)、选择干预措施进行评估(共 170 项),以及对这些干预措施进行评估和评价(从全民健康计划立方体的三个维度进行)。调查对象对优先事项确定过程的几个方面普遍持肯定态度。结论:尽管面临着一些挑战,包括 COVID-19 大流行造成的部分中断,但通过让利益相关者参与讨论,并以证据为依据和保持透明,优先事项确定过程的实施可能提高了决策的合法性。所汲取的重要经验对其他国家设计自己的一揽子保健福利计划很有帮助,如利益相关者广泛参与的选择和局限性。
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
The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan
Background: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. Methods: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. Results: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. Conclusion: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.
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
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
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