Framework For Priority Setting Research Articles

Ex-ante priority setting in crop breeding: Towards inclusive innovation for impact

CONTEXTCrop breeding teams should ideally work a-priori to rank research priorities and varietal product concepts to make decisions considering social, environmental, production and market conditions that an improved crop variety will be entering upon release. Frequently, this research prioritization is guided by a cost-benefit optimization framing, which leaves the potential derived by alternative approaches, such as inclusive innovation, unexplored. OBJECTIVEIn this study, we apply PEEP (Participatory Ex-ante framework for Plant breeding), a new methodological framework for ex-ante participatory priority setting for plant breeding programs. This framework explores how, given a set of hypothetical crop varieties (varietal product concepts) it is possible to assess which will have the highest potential to deliver research impacts. PEEP is designed to support crop breeders to understand the impact potential of a new varietal product concept, and strategically make decisions based on this. METHODSPEEP ranks varietal product concepts across five impact domains: breeding, processing, marketing, climate, and cross-cutting themes. This paper reports on how an interdisciplinary breeding team from the Institute of Environment and Agricultural Research (INERA) in Burkina Faso working on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp) applied PEEP and discusses the results from this application. We chose cowpea as a crop focus, based on prior research that showed that gender and social differences shape roles, responsibilities, and benefits from its cultivation in Burkina Faso. We engaged 650 stakeholders using tools and methods (choice experiment, surveys and focus group discussions) tailored to collect information according to their spheres of knowledge. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONSWe present a reflection on the application process, results, and feedback from the INERA cowpea breeding team on these. We show that breeders and farmers ranked the potential impact of the varietal product concepts differently. We also show that differences in evaluation of impact from varietal product concepts vary based on market orientation, agroecological zones, farming systems and gender. SIGNIFICANCEWe demonstrate that PEEP contributes to inclusive agricultural innovation as a feasible method to consider the knowledge and preferences of diverse stakeholders. We show that it is informative to include diverse groups when conceptualizing new varieties before investing in varietal development. Making such research prioritization decisions early on enables breeding programs to avoid “missing the mark” on assumed impacts on smallholder women and men farmers and increases their visibility and voice in these upstream decisions.

Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research

BackgroundThe challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders’ views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework – the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework.ResultsThirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework.ConclusionsUsing a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.

Charting public views on the meaning of illness severity

BackgroundIllness severity is a central principle in multiple priority-setting frameworks, yet there is a paucity of research on public views regarding the meaning of illness severity. This study builds on the findings of a Q methodology study with members of the public that identified four general viewpoints on the meaning of illness severity. Here, we investigate the support for those viewpoints among the Norwegian population. MethodsFollowing piloting, the online survey was distributed to a broadly representative sample of the population (March to April 2023). The viewpoints from the earlier Q study were converted into vignettes: Lifespan, Subjective, Objective, and Functioning and Quality of Life (FQoL). The main task in the survey comprised ranking the vignettes and scoring them on a 0–10 visual analogue scale. We describe vignette alignment (from weak to strong) based on four categorisations (C1 to C4). C1 placed all respondents on their top scored vignette(s); C2 required a score of ≥7; C3 was designed to resolve ties; and C4 (which describes vignette membership) required a score of ≥7, a gap of two between vignettes scored ≥7, and did not allow ties. ResultsThe survey was completed by 1174 individuals; those who completed in ≤3.5 min were excluded. Of the final sample (n = 1094), 98.1% scored at least one vignette ≥7. In C1, 40.2% were aligned with Lifespan, 32.4% with FQoL, 28.9% with Objective, and 16.3% with Subjective. Using the C4 criteria, 55.4% did not have vignette membership, 13.6% had membership with Lifespan, 13.1% with Objective, 11.4% with FQoL, and 6.5% with Subjective. ConclusionsSeverity is an ambiguous term among members of the public. Decisionmakers ought to bear this plurality of meanings in mind, and perhaps reconsider whether using a term as multifaceted as ‘severity’ is helpful in formulating precise and transparent priority-setting criteria.

An integrated strategic framework for priority setting in the Australian vanilla industry

Global demand of vanilla, as a natural flavour, is consistently growing. Vanilla is an emerging crop with high potential for Australian growers due to its climatic suitability in some regions, and high domestic and global demand. In this paper, the priorities of Australian vanilla industry are recognised based on the current issues, challenges, and opportunities. We show the priorities and related activities as established through one-on-one interaction and group engagement with industry wide stakeholders to capture a varied range of views. Critical feedback from the industry included the need for structuring an industry association, arrangements that offer training for example on production, postharvest and product diversification, improvements to the linkages between stakeholders, and technical support from research and development agencies. The priorities were ranked by stakeholders according to their importance as follows: (a) capacity building, (b) harvest and postharvest protocols, (c) production procedures, and (d) selection of better clonal material. Addressing the industry’s needs and priorities will ensure its future development is sustainable and economically viable. Policymakers are encouraged to take into account these discerned priorities and the proposed strategies designed to confront the industry’s needs and challenges.

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems

BackgroundThere is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework.MethodsTo develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views.ResultsThe key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff.ConclusionsThe integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Priority setting for non-communicable disease prevention – Co-producing a regulatory agenda informing novel codes of practice in Australia

There are a range of priority setting methods for non-communicable disease (NCDs) prevention. However, existing methods are often designed without detailed consideration of local context and political economy– critical success factors for implementation. In Australia, codes of practice under state government Public Health Acts could be used for NCD prevention. To inform the potential development of codes of practice under Public Health Acts, this study aimed to co-create a priority setting framework that accounts for local context and the prevailing regulatory agenda. A priority setting framework was co-produced by a multidisciplinary technical advisory group consisting of government representatives, public health lawyers and academic experts. It incorporated general prioritisation criteria (evidence, cost-effectiveness, equity, burden of disease) and local contextual criteria (legal compatibility, unmet-needs, political acceptability, structural and technical feasibility, community support). The framework was then applied in practice through surveys and policy dialogue workshops to discuss political economy factors. Policies were limited to nutrition, alcohol and physical activity risk factors. Through the prioritisation process, the most impactful, feasible and acceptable policies for NCD prevention via state government codes of practice were: restrictions on in-store placement of unhealthy products, enhancing data systems and capabilities for health surveillance and implementation monitoring, removal of unhealthy foods and drinks sold and supplied in public institutions, prohibition of marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks on assets controlled by government, and implementation of subsidies or grants to increase fruit and vegetable intake. The process illustrated that explicit consideration of local context, legal compatibility and the political economy had a substantial influence on the prioritised list of actions. The proposed priority setting framework is designed to be flexible and adaptable to varying contexts, can be embedded in government processes or utilised by researchers and practitioners to co-produce a regulatory agenda that is locally relevant.

Mitigating inequity: ethically prioritizing patients for CAR T-cell therapy

AbstractManufacturing capacity and institutional infrastructure to deliver chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-T) are pressured to keep pace with the growing number of approved products and expanding eligible patient population for this potentially life-saving therapy. Consequently, many cell therapy programs must make difficult decisions about which patient should get the next available treatment slot. This situation requires an ethical framework to ensure fair and equitable decision-making. In this perspective, we discuss the application of Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R), a priority-setting framework grounded in procedural justice, to the problem of limited CAR-T slots at our institution. We formed a multidisciplinary working group spanning several hematological malignancies. Through multiple rounds of partner engagement, we used A4R guiding principles to identify 4 main criteria to prioritize patients for CAR-T: medical benefit, safety/risk of complications, psychosocial factors, and medical urgency. Associated measures/tools and an implementation process were developed. We discuss further how ethical principles of fairness and equity demand a consistent approach within health systems that does not disadvantage medically underserved or underrepresented populations and supports overcoming barriers to care. In our commitment to transparency and collaboration, we make our tools available to others, ideally to be used to engage in their own A4R process, adapting the tools to their unique environments. Our hope is that our preliminary work will support the advancement of further study in this area globally, aiming for justice in resource allocation for all potential CAR-T candidates, wherever they may seek care.

Prioritization and Resource Allocation in Academic Global Health Partnerships.

US-based academic institutions involved in global health (GH) partnerships can have a positive impact on health care systems in low/middle-income countries but lack a consistent approach. Existing priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) frameworks do not adequately capture the interpersonal and sociopolitical complexity of decision-making in GH work. The authors explored how US-based GH practitioners prioritize and allocate resources for different types of support in academic GH partnerships. In 2020 to 2021, the authors invited 36 US-based GH practitioners from the 2015 Pediatric GH Leadership Conference to participate in individual 1-hour semi-structured interviews. Using an iterative and inductive grounded theory approach, the study team analyzed interview transcripts through the lens of Heyse's framework on decision-making in humanitarian aid. The authors interviewed 20 GH practitioners and reached thematic sufficiency. A descriptive conceptual framework, capturing 18 distinct themes in 4 major categories, emerged from the data. In this framework, categories included: 1) stakeholders: those who influence and are influenced by the partnership; 2) goals: vision, mission, aims, and scope of the partnership; 3) implementation strategy: approach to accomplishing goals, categorized as relationship-oriented, task-oriented, context-oriented, or nonprescriptive; and 4) approach to conflict: response when goals and strategies do not align among stakeholders. Themes revealed a dynamic process for PSRA. Using our study findings, and building on existing literature, our framework highlights the complex interpersonal relationships, resource limitations, and sociopolitical and economic constraints that affect PSRA in GH partnerships. Finally, themes point to the field's evolution toward a more decolonized approach to GH.

Ethical considerations and a practical framework for priority setting during an epidural equipment shortage.

Ethical considerations and a practical framework for priority setting during an epidural equipment shortage.

Proposing the “Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice” (VEDMAP) framework for Priority-Setting and knowledge translation in low and Middle-Income Countries: A novel framework for Decision-Making in Low-and middle income countries like Malawi

The existence and availability of evidence on its own does not guarantee that the evidence will be demanded and used by decision and policy makers. Decision and policy-makers, especially in low-income settings, often confront ethical dilemmas about determining the best available evidence and its utilization. This dilemma can be in the form of conflict of evidence, scientific and ethical equipoise and competing evidence or interests. Consequently, decisions are made based on convenience, personal preference, donor requirements, and political and social considerations which can result in wastage of resources and inefficiency. To mitigate these challenges, the use of “Value- and Evidence-Based Decision Making and Practice” (VEDMAP) framework is proposed. This framework was developed by Joseph Mfutso-Bengo in 2017 through a desk review. It was pretested through a scoping study under the Thanzi la Onse (TLO) Project which assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using the VEDMAP as a priority setting tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Malawi. The study used mixed methods whereby it conducted a desk review to map out and benchmark normative values of different countries in Africa and HTA; focus group discussion and key informant interviews to map out the actual (practised) values in Malawi. The results of this review confirmed that the use of VEDMAP framework was feasible and acceptable and can bring efficiency, traceability, transparency and integrity in decision- policy making process and implementation.

Political Prioritisation for Performance-Based Financing at the County Level in Kenya: 2015 to 2018.

Performance based financing was introduced to Kilifi county in Kenya in 2015. This study investigates how and why political and bureaucratic actors at the local level in Kilifi county influenced the extent to which PBF was politically prioritised at the sub-national level. The study employed a single-case study design. The Shiffman and Smith political priority setting framework with adaptations proposed by Walt and Gilson was applied. Data was collected through document review (n=19) and in-depth interviews (n=8). Framework analysis was used to analyse data and generate findings. In the period 2015-2018, the political prioritisation of PBF at the county level in Kilifi was influenced by contextual features including the devolution of power to sub-national actors and rigid public financial management structures. It was further influenced by interpretations of the idea of 'pay-for-performance', its framing as 'additional funding', as well as contestation between actors at the sub national level about key PBF design features. Ultimately PBF ceased at the end of 2018 after donor funding stopped. Health reformers must be cognisant of the power and interests of national and sub national actors in all phases of the policy process, including both bureaucratic and political actors in health and non-health sectors. This is particularly important in devolved public governance contexts where reforms require sustained attention and budgetary commitment at the sub national level. There is also need for early involvement of critical actors to develop shared understandings of the ideas on which interventions are premised, as well as problems and solutions.

The Value of Explicit, Deliberative, and Context-Specified Ethics Analysis for Health Technology Assessment: Evidence From a Novel Approach Piloted in South Africa

ObjectivesThis article explores the perceived value, including associated strengths and challenges, of using a context-specified ethics framework to guide deliberative health technology appraisals. MethodsThe South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) approach, piloted in South Africa, consisted of 2 phases: (1) convening a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework and (2) testing the provisional ethics framework through simulated health technology assessment appraisal committee meetings (SACs). Three SACs each reviewed 2 case studies of sample health interventions using the framework. Participants completed postappraisal questionnaires and engaged in focus group discussions. ResultsThe SACs involved 27 participants across 3 provinces. Findings from the postappraisal questionnaires demonstrated general support for the SAVE-UHC approach and content of the framework, high levels of satisfaction with the recommendations produced, and general sentiment that participants were able to actively contribute to appraisals. Qualitative data showed participants perceived using a context-specified ethics framework in deliberative decision making: (1) supported wider consideration of and deliberation about morally relevant features of the health coverage decisions, thereby contributing to quality of appraisals; (2) could improve transparency; and (3) offered benefits to those directly involved in the priority-setting process. Participants also identified some challenges and concerns associated with the approach. ConclusionsThe SAVE-UHC approach presents a novel way to develop and pilot a locally contextualized, explicit ethics framework for health priority setting. This work highlights how the combination of a context-specified ethics framework and structured deliberative appraisals can contribute to the quality of health technology appraisals and transparency of health priority setting.

Institutionalisation Is a Vital Element for Fairness of Priority Setting in the Package Design if the Target is Universal Health Coverage Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefits Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

The evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) guide provides a practical framework for fair priority setting of the health benefits package (HBP) that countries can reasonably use. The steps presented in the EDPs are applicable for prioritising health services in designing HBP and are consistent with practical experience in countries. However, institutionalisation must be considered an element of fairness in the priority-setting process if the aim is to reach broader goals of a health system, such as universal health coverage (UHC). Otherwise, the EDPs for priority setting might not be integrated into the formal health system or impactful, resulting in a waste of time and resources, which is unfair. Institutionalisation means formalising the desired change as an embedded and integrated system so that the change lasts over time. For the institutionalisation of EPDs, four stages are suggested, which are (1) establishing a supportive legal framework, (2) designating governance and institutional structure, (3) stipulating the EDPs processes and (4) individual and institutional capacity building.

Setting Preconception Care Priorities in Australia Using a Delphi Technique.

Preconception health affects fertility, pregnancy, and future health outcomes but public awareness of this is low. Our aims were to rank priorities for preconception care (PCC), develop strategies to address these priorities, and establish values to guide future work in preconception healthcare in Australia. A Delphi technique involved two rounds of online voting and mid-round workshops. Inputs were a scoping review of PCC guidelines, a priority setting framework and existing networks that focus on health. During July and August, 2021, 23 multidisciplinary experts in PCC or social care, including a consumer advocate, completed the Delphi technique. Ten priority areas were identified, with health behaviors, medical history, weight, and reproductive health ranked most highly. Six strategies were identified. Underpinning values encompassed engagement with stakeholders, a life course view of preconception health, an integrated multi-sectorial approach and a need for large scale collaboration to implement interventions that deliver impact across health care, social care, policy and population health. Priority populations were considered within the social determinants of health. Health behaviors, medical history, weight, and reproductive health were ranked highly as PCC priorities. Key strategies to address priorities should be implemented with consideration of values that improve the preconception health of all Australians.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries

BackgroundLatin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps.MethodsA documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables.ResultsWhile all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country’s health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged.ConclusionThis study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Introducing an Ethics Framework for health priority-setting in South Africa on the path to universal health coverage

Background. South Africa (SA) has embarked on a process to implement universal health coverage (UHC) funded by National Health Insurance (NHI). The 2019 NHI Bill proposes creation of a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform decisions about which interventions NHI funds will cover under UHC. In practice, HTA often relies mainly on economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness and budget impact, with less attention to the systematic, specific consideration of important social, organisational and ethical impacts of the health technology in question. In this context, the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) research project recognised an opportunity to help shape the health priority-setting process by providing a way to take account of multiple, ethically relevant considerations that reflect SA values. The SAVE-UHC Research Team developed and tested an SA-specific Ethics Framework for HTA assessment and analysis. Objectives. To develop and test an Ethics Framework for use in the SA context for health priority-setting. Methods. The Framework was developed iteratively by the authors and a multidisciplinary panel (18 participants) over a period of 18 months, using the principles outlined in the 2015 NHI White Paper as a starting point. The provisional Ethics Framework was then tested with multi-stakeholder simulated appraisal committees (SACs) in three provinces. The membership of each SAC roughly reflected the composition of a potential SA HTA committee. The deliberations and dedicated focus group discussions after each SAC meeting were recorded, analysed and used to refine the Framework, which was presented to the Working Group for review, comment and final approval. Results. This article describes the 12 domains of the Framework. The first four (Burden of the Health Condition, Expected Health Benefits and Harms, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and Budget Impact) are commonly used in HTA assessments, and a further eight cover the other ethical domains. These are Equity, Respect and Dignity, Impacts on Personal Financial Situation, Forming and Maintaining Important Personal Relationships, Ease of Suffering, Impact on Safety and Security, Solidarity and Social Cohesion, and Systems Factors and Constraints. In each domain are questions and prompts to enable use of the Framework by both analysts and assessors. Issues that arose, such as weighting of the domains and the availability of SA evidence, were discussed by the SACs. Conclusions. The Ethics Framework is intended for use in priority-setting within an HTA process. The Framework was well accepted by a diverse group of stakeholders. The final version will be a useful tool not only for HTA and other priority-setting processes in SA, but also for future efforts to create HTA methods in SA and elsewhere.

Developing and piloting a context-specified ethics framework for health technology assessment: the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage approach.

While ethics has been identified as a core component of health technology assessment (HTA), there are few examples of practical, systematic inclusion of ethics analysis in HTA. Some attribute the scarcity of ethics analysis in HTA to debates about appropriate methodology and the need for ethics frameworks that are relevant to local social values. The "South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage" (SAVE-UHC) project models an approach that countries can use to develop HTA ethics frameworks that are specific to their national contexts. The SAVE-UHC approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, the research team convened and facilitated a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework through a collaborative, engagement-driven process. In Phase II, the research team refined the model framework by piloting it through three simulated HTA appraisal committee meetings. Each simulated committee reviewed two case studies of sample health interventions: opioid substitution therapy and either a novel contraceptive implant or seasonal influenza immunization for children under five. The methodology was fit-for-purpose, resulting in a context-specified ethics framework and producing relevant findings to inform application of the framework for the given HTA context. The SAVE-UHC approach provides a model for developing, piloting, and refining an ethics framework for health priority-setting that is responsive to national social values. This approach also helps identify key facilitators and challenges for integrating ethics analysis into HTA processes.

Stakeholder perceptions of current practices and challenges in priority setting for non-communicable disease control in Kenya: a qualitative study

ObjectiveTo explore the stakeholders’ perceptions of current practices and challenges in priority setting for non-communicable disease (NCD) control in Kenya.DesignA qualitative study approach conducted within a 1-day stakeholder workshop that...

\u2018There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly\u2019 \u2013 a qualitative study of clinicians\u2019 beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation

BackgroundConcerns have been raised regarding the reasonableness of using personal health responsibility as a principle or criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. While this debate continues, little is known about clinicians’ views on the role of patient responsibility in clinical contexts. This paper contributes to the knowledge on the empirical relevance of personal responsibility for priority setting at the clinical level.MethodsA qualitative study of Norwegian clinicians (n = 15) was designed, using semi-structured interviews with vignettes to elicit beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation. Sampling was undertaken purposefully. The interviews were conducted in three hospital trusts in South-Eastern Norway between May 2018 and February 2019 and were analysed with conceptually driven thematic analysis.ResultsThe findings suggest that clinicians endorsed a general principle of personal health responsibility but were reluctant to introduce personal health responsibility as a formal priority setting criterion. Five main objections were cited, relating to avoidability, causality, harshness, intrusiveness, and inequity. Still, both retrospective and prospective attributions of personal responsibility were perceived as relevant in specific clinical settings. The most prominent argument in favour of personal health responsibility was grounded in the idea that holding patients responsible for their conduct would contribute to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Other arguments included fairness to others, desert and autonomy, but such standpoints were controversial and held only marginal relevance.ConclusionsOur study provides important novel insights into the clinicians’ beliefs about personal health responsibility improving the empirical knowledge concerning its fairness and potential applications to healthcare prioritisation. These findings suggest that although personal health responsibility would be difficult to implement as a steering criterion within the main priority setting framework, there might be clinical contexts where it could figure in prioritisation practices. Additional research on personal health responsibility would benefit from considering the multiple clinical encounters that shape doctor-patient relationships and that create the information basis for eligibility and prioritisation for treatment.

A Model for Priority Setting in Health Technology Innovation Policy

Health Technology Assessment focuses on equal appraisal of health technologies introduced into the market. This has made regulators and the governance of innovation reactive and dependent on the initiatives innovators take for technology development, thus making it supply driven. The policy makers’ role has become one of appraising technologies that are already developed rather than guiding the development agenda. This severely limits the possibility to ensure that health technologies sufficiently address major issues such as burden of disease, trade deficit and health inequalities. It places governments outside of the actor arena that co-shapes technologies in the early stages, restricting the involvement to facilitating scale up or not. It makes it hard to achieve health technology governance practices that maximally contribute to ensure technological developments that actually address public concerns. What is the potential of frameworks for changing this dynamics and how can evidence shape technology development agenda’s without falling into the traps of regulator lock-in or social engineering? The methodology presented in this study takes first but important steps towards an evidence based framework for priority setting to guide innovations, particularly in health and social sectors