巴基斯坦利用证据设计基本一揽子保健服务:审查和分析评估过程不同阶段的优先决策。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2024-03-09 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8043
Sergio Torres-Rueda, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, Nichola Kitson, Muhammad Khalid, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Maarten Jansen, Wajeeha Raza, Maryam Huda, Frank Sandmann, Rob Baltussen, Sameen Siddiqi, Ala Alwan
{"title":"巴基斯坦利用证据设计基本一揽子保健服务:审查和分析评估过程不同阶段的优先决策。","authors":"Sergio Torres-Rueda, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, Nichola Kitson, Muhammad Khalid, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Maarten Jansen, Wajeeha Raza, Maryam Huda, Frank Sandmann, Rob Baltussen, Sameen Siddiqi, Ala Alwan","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pakistan 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quantitative 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Value 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence-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.</p>","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Sergio Torres-Rueda, Anna Vassall, Raza Zaidi, Nichola Kitson, Muhammad Khalid, Wahaj Zulfiqar, Maarten Jansen, Wajeeha Raza, Maryam Huda, Frank Sandmann, Rob Baltussen, Sameen Siddiqi, Ala Alwan\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pakistan 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quantitative 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Value 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence-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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-09\",\"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.2024.8043\",\"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.2024.8043","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:巴基斯坦开始设计一套基本卫生服务(EPHS),作为实现全民健康覆盖(UHC)的途径。一揽子基本卫生服务的设计遵循了以证据为依据的审议过程;在多个评估阶段引入了 170 项干预措施的证据,并让不同的利益相关者参与其中,负责确定纳入干预措施的优先次序。我们报告了不同阶段的一揽子干预措施的构成情况,分析了被列为优先和非优先干预措施的趋势,并对所做的权衡进行了反思:方法:分阶段向利益相关者提交了有关成本效益、预算影响和可避免疾病负担的定量证据。我们记录了每个阶段被优先考虑和取消优先考虑的干预措施,并进行了三项分析:(1) 回顾每个阶段被优先考虑的干预措施总数,以及相关的人均成本和避免的残疾调整生命年(DALYs),以了解一揽子措施中可负担性和效率的变化;(2) 按决策标准和干预措施特征对干预措施进行分析,以分析不同阶段的优先趋势;(3) 按当前覆盖范围和成本效益对干预措施的轨迹进行描述:结果:在整个过程中,资金效益普遍提高,但并不一致。利益相关者大多优先考虑对预算影响较小的干预措施和预防疾病负担较重的干预措施。成本效益高的干预措施也被列为优先事项,但在整个过程的各个阶段,其优先次序并不一致。目前覆盖率高的干预措施绝大多数被优先纳入:结论:以证据为依据的审议过程可以产生可行且负担得起的一揽子健康福利。虽然具有成本效益的干预措施通常更受青睐,但其他因素也发挥着作用并限制了效率。
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 to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.

Background: Pakistan 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.

Methods: Quantitative 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.

Results: Value 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.

Conclusion: Evidence-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.

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