Priority Setting In Health Care Research Articles

Global and Regional Economic Burden of Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Critique of Methods.

This systematic review aims to comprehensively examine up-to-date evidence on the economic burden of eating disorders (EDs), both globally and by region. A comprehensive search within five electronic databases, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit, retrieved studies published from August 1, 2013, to June 30, 2024. Cost of illness (COI) studies, burden of disease, and other cost studies that reported costs in monetary values were included, and cost-effectiveness analysis studies were excluded. The quality of COI studies was assessed using Schnitzler's checklist. All cost estimates were converted into 2024 USD purchasing power parity (PPP). The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022358136. Twenty-six studies were identified for inclusion in this review, with 11 COI studies. The nationwide annual financial cost of EDs is estimated at PPP-USD 70.5 billion. Indirect costs contributed 70%-93% of total financial costs in the reviewed studies. Intangible costs (burden of disease) were estimated to be PPP-USD 355.6 billion. About half of the COI studies met 60% of the elements of Schnitzler's checklist, either completely or partly. The number of COI studies has more than doubled in the last 10 years. Findings can inform healthcare administrators/policymakers to understand the magnitude of this burden when setting healthcare priorities and allocating resources to maximize social welfare. However, there are variations in the methods (thus quality) and perspectives used to assess this economic burden. Findings suggest that there is potential for enhancing the methodological rigor of future research.

Economic effects of priority setting in healthcare: a scoping review of current evidence

ObjectivesStudy objective was to map the current literature on the economic effects of priority setting at the system level in healthcare.DesignThe study was conducted as a scoping review.Data sourcesScopus electronic database was searched in June 2023.Eligibility criteriaWe included peer-reviewed articles published 1 January 2020–1 January 2023. All study designs that contained empirical evidence on the financial effects or opportunity costs of healthcare priority setting were included excluding disease, condition, treatment, or patient group-specific studies.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers screened the articles, and two additional researchers reviewed the full texts and extracted data. We used Joanna Briggs Institute checklists to assess the quality of qualitative, quasi-experimental and economic evaluations and the mixed methods appraisal tool for the mixed method studies. Synthesis was done qualitatively and through descriptive statistics.Results8869 articles were screened and 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The most common study focus was health technology assessment (7/15). Other contexts were opportunity costs, effects of programme budgeting and marginal analysis, and disinvestment initiatives. Priority setting activities analysed in the studies did not achieve cost savings or cost containment (4/15) or have mixed findings at best (8/15). Only five studies found some indication of cost savings, cost containment or increased efficiency. Also, many of the studies consider costs only indirectly or qualitatively.ConclusionsAll in all, there is very little research addressing the pressing question of whether explicit priority setting and priority-setting methods can support cost containment on a health service system level (regional or national). There is limited evidence of the economic effects of priority setting.

Embedding voices of under-served communities in Health Research Priority Setting in Thailand

Health research is needed to develop new treatments, diagnostic methods and prevention strategies for many diseases, but resources are limited particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our proposed project involves in-depth engagement with community advisory boards and existing community groups in healthcare research priority setting in Thailand. We will use Wellcome’s “Responsive Dialogues” engagement approach, focusing on “underserved” groups, as their voices are seldom heard in healthcare research priority setting. We estimate that we will engage with 6–8 community groups involving 48–80 participants. Our objectives are firstly, to contribute to the health research agenda setting in Thailand for government, non-governmental actors, academia, and others who conduct health research in the next 5 to 10 years. Secondly, we aim to identify ethical and practical issues related to healthcare research priority setting, specifically in relation to involving under-served communities.

Severity and Temporality in Healthcare Priority Setting - A Case for A Condition-specific Affectable Time-neutral Approach.

Priority setting of scarce resources in healthcare is high on the agenda of most healthcare systems implying a need to develop robust foundations for making fair allocation decisions. One central factor for such decisions in needs-based systems, following both empirical studies and theoretical analyses, is severity. However, it has been noted that severity is an under-theorized concept. One such aspect is how severity should relate to temporality. There is a rich discussion on temporality and distributive justice, however, this discussion needs to be adapted to the practical and ethical requirements of healthcare priority setting principles at mid-level. In this article, we analyze how temporal aspects should be taken into account when assessing severity as a modifier for cost-effectiveness. We argue that when assessing the severity of a condition, we have reason to look at complete conditions from a time-neutral perspective, meaning that we take the full affectable stretch of the condition into account without modifying severity as patients move through the temporal stretch and without discounting the future. We do not find support for taking the 'shape' of a condition into account per se, e.g. whether the severity has a declining or inclining curve, or that severity is intermittent rather than continuous. In order to take severity seriously, we argue that we have reason to apply a quantified approach where every difference in severity should impact on priority setting. In conclusion, we find that this approach is practically useful in actual priority setting.

Equity considerations for the implementation of health insurance benefit package in Ethiopia: result of expert Delphi exercise

BackgroundEfficiency, equity and financial risk protection are key health systems objectives. Equitable distribution of health care is among the priority strategic initiative of the government of Ethiopia. However, data on the distribution of interventions benefits or on disease burden disaggregated by subpopulations to guide health care priority setting is not available in Ethiopia.MethodsAligned with policy documents, we identified the following groups to be the worse off in the Ethiopian context: under-five children, women of reproductive age, the poor, and rural residents. We used the Delphi technique by a panel of 28 experts to assign a score for 253 diseases/conditions over a period of two days, in phases. The expert panel represented different institutes and professional mix. Experts assigned a score 1 to 4; where 4 indicates disease/condition predominantly affecting the poor and rural residents and 1 indicates a condition more prevalent among the wealthy and urban residents. Subsequently, the average equity score was computed for each disease/condition.ResultsThe average scores ranged from 1.11 (for vitiligo) to 3.79 (for obstetric fistula). We standardized the scores to be bounded between 1 and 2; 1 the lowest equity score and 2 the highest equity score. The scores for each disease/condition were then assigned to their corresponding interventions. We used these equity scores to adjust the CEA values for each of the interventions. To adjust the CEA values for equity, we multiplied the health benefits (the denominator of the cost-effectiveness value) of each intervention by the corresponding equity scores, resulting in equity adjusted CEA values. The equity adjusted CEA was then used to rank the interventions using a league table.ConclusionsThe Delphi method can be useful in generating equity scores for prioritizing health interventions where disaggregated data on the distribution of diseases or access to interventions by subpopulation groups are not available.

Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?

When considering the introduction of a new intervention in a budget constrained healthcare system, priority setting based on fair principles is fundamental. In many jurisdictions, a multi-criteria approach with several different considerations is employed, including severity and cost-effectiveness. Such multi-criteria approaches raise questions about how to balance different considerations against each other, and how to understand the logical or normative relations between them. For example, some jurisdictions make explicit reference to a large patient benefit as such a consideration. However, since patient benefit is part of a cost-effectiveness assessment it is not clear how to balance considerations of greater patient benefit against considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of a large patient benefit as an independent criterion for priority setting in a healthcare system also considering severity and cost-effectiveness. By taking the opportunity cost of new interventions (i.e., the health forgone in patients already receiving treatment) into account, we argue that patient benefit has a complex relationship to priority setting. More specifically, it cannot be reasonably concluded that large patient benefits should be given priority if severity, cost-effectiveness, and opportunity costs are held constant. Since we cannot find general support for taking patient benefit into account as an independent criterion from any of the most discussed theories about distributive justice: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, telic egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, it is reasonable to avoid doing so. Hence, given the complexity of the role of patient benefit, we conclude that in priority practice, a large patient benefit should not be considered as an independent criterion, on top of considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness.

Incommensurability and healthcare priority setting

AbstractThis paper argues that accepting incommensurability can be a useful step for developing attractive hybrid theories to how to distribute scarce health-related resources. If one provides opportunity for distributive options to be incommensurable with respect to substantive criteria, one can hold on to substantive criteria while also providing room for decision processes to play a significant role. The paper also argues that the strategy of accepting incommensurability is preferable to the strategy of having substantive criteria establish sets of options that are equally, explains why incommensurability gives us reason to go hybrid, and argues that reasons grounded in decision processes have properties that make them appropriate as “tiebreakers” in choice situations characterized by incommensurability.

Institutional design and moral conflict in health care priority-setting.

Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium.

Preparing popular views for inclusion in a reflective equilibrium: A case study on illness severity

Principles for priority setting in health care are typically forged by experts influenced by the normative literature on priority setting. Meanwhile, their implementation is subject to democratic deliberation, political pressures, and administrative bureaucracy. Sometimes expert proposals are democratically rejected. This points towards a problem: on the one hand, the fact that a majority shares a moral belief does not inherently validate this belief. On the other hand, when justifying a position to others, we cannot expect much success without engaging with their moral judgments. In this work we examine the possibility of including so-called popular views in a reflective equilibrium process. In reflective equilibrium processes, we are usually interested in considered judgments rather than mere intuitions. Popular views, arguably, often do not meet this standard. To mitigate this, we propose to bolster popular views by linking them with theoretical frameworks echoing similar moral perspectives. We use illness severity as a case study and show that a set of popular accounts can provide considered judgments that merit inclusion in a publicly informed reflective equilibrium process. This is plausibly a way forward in the search for priority setting principles that are both normatively sound and acceptable to the public. Our method provides a general framework for refining available data on popular views on moral questions, including when we cannot assess the consideredness of such views.

Consolidating political leadership in healthcare: a mediating institution for priority-setting as a political strategy in a local health system.

The allocation of resources is a crucial part of political decision-making in healthcare, but explicit priorities are rarely set when resources are distributed. Two areas that have received some attention in research about legitimacy and priority-setting decisions in healthcare are the role of technical expert agencies as mediating institutions and the role of elected politicians. This paper investigates a political priority-setting advisory committee within a regional authority in Sweden. The aim is to explore how a political body can serve as a mediating institution for priority-setting in healthcare by disentangling the arrangements of its work in terms of what role it performs in the organisation and what it should do. The findings illustrate that promoting the notion of explicit priority-setting and the political aspects inherent in priority-setting in political healthcare management can contribute to consolidating political governance and leadership. There is, however, a complex tension between stability and conflicting values which has implications for the role of politicians as citizens' democratic representatives. This paper enhances our understanding of the role of mediating institutions and political properties of healthcare priority-setting, as well as our understanding of political and democratic healthcare governance in local self-government.

‘Empathy counterbalancing’ to mitigate the ‘identified victim effect’? Ethical reflections on cognitive debiasing strategies to increase support for healthcare priority setting

Priority setting is inevitable to control expenditure on expensive medicines, but citizen support is often hampered by the workings of the ‘identified victim effect’, that is, the greater willingness to...

The ethical canary: narrow reflective equilibrium as a source of moral justification in healthcare priority-setting

Healthcare priority-setting institutions have good reason to want to demonstrate that their decisions are morally justified—and those who contribute to and use the health service have good reason to hope...

Severity and death

This article discusses the relationship between two theories about the badness of death, the Life-Comparative Account and the Gradualist Account, and two methods of operationalizing severity in health care priority setting, Absolute Shortfall and Proportional Shortfall. The aim is that theories about the badness of death can influence and inform the idea of the basis of severity as a priority setting criterion. I argue that there are strong similarities between the Life-Comparative Account and Absolute Shortfall, and since the Life-Comparative Account is one of the most reasonable accounts of the badness of death, this provides some support for using Absolute Shortfall. I also argue that it is difficult to find support for Proportional Shortfall from theories about the badness of death, and also, that it is difficult to find support for Gradualist Account from theories about severity.

Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design

BackgroundThere is limited evidence-informed guidance on TISP processes for countries where health technology assessment (HTA) is in a nascent phase. We aimed to explore the range of topic identification, selection and prioritization (TISP) processes and practices for HTA in selected countries and identify aspects relevant to emerging HTA systems.MethodsThis mixed design study included a systematic literature review, an electronic survey, and individual interviews. We conducted a systematic literature review with criteria that were developed a priori to identify countries deemed to have a recently formalized HTA system. Based on the literature review, a twenty-three item online survey was shared with the identified countries, we completed follow-up interviews with ten participants who have experience with HTA. We analyzed documents, survey responses and interview transcripts thematically to identify lessons related to TISP processes and practices.ResultsThe literature review identified 29 nine candidate countries as having a “potential” recently formalized HTA system. Twenty-one survey responses were analyzed and supplemented with ten individual interviews. We found variation in countries’ approaches to TISP — particularly between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Results indicate that TISP is heavily driven by policy makers, expert involvement, and to a lesser extent, relevant stakeholders. The use of horizon-scanning and early warning systems is uncommon. Interviewee participants provided further insight to the survey data, reporting that political awareness and an institutional framework were important to support TISP. TISP can be optimized by stronger national regulations and legislative structures, in addition to education and advocacy about HTA among politicians and decision-makers. In some settings regional networks have been useful, particularly in the development of TISP guidelines and methodologies. Additionally, the technical capacity to conduct TISP, and access to relevant local data were factors limiting TISP in national settings. Increased network collaboration and capacity building were reported as future needs.ConclusionsThis study provides current insights into a topic where there is limited published peer reviewed literature. TISP is an important first step of HTA, and topics should be selected and prioritized based on local need and relevance. The limited capacity for TISP in settings where HTA is emerging may be supported by local and international collaboration to increase capacity and knowledge. To succeed, both TISP and HTA need to be embedded within national health care priority setting and decision-making. More in-depth understanding of where countries are situtated in formalizing the TISP process may help others to overcome factors that facilitate or hinder progress.

How did European countries set health priorities in response to the COVID-19 threat? A comparative document analysis of 24 pandemic preparedness plans across the EURO region

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. There are many tools and frameworks that have been designed to assist with the challenges of priority setting in health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which formal priority setting was evident in the pandemic plans produced by countries in the World Health Organisation's EURO region, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This compliments analysis of similar plans produced in other regions of the world. Twenty four pandemic preparedness plans were obtained that had been published between March and September 2020. For data extraction, we applied a framework for identifying and assessing the elements of good priority setting to each plan, before conducting comparative analysis across the sample. Our findings suggest that while some pre-requisites for effective priority setting were present in many cases – including political commitment and a recognition of the need for allocation decisions – many other hallmarks were less evident, such as explicit ethical criteria, decision making frameworks, and engagement processes. This study provides a unique insight into the role of priority setting in the European response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE NURSE AND THEIR ROLE IN HEALTH SITUATION ANALYSIS

The nurse as a health manager requires knowledge of the health situation for the effective execution of their activities, identifying, describing, and explaining health problems found in their region. Once health needs are identified, priorities for actions will be determined. This is a literature review. The present study aims to address the importance of the nurse’s knowledge of the health situation for the implementation of planning practices and priority setting in health care. It is concluded that health data, obtained through the analysis of the health situation, are important for understanding the profile, generating appropriate care, and planning actions that guide and assist the population in a comprehensive and coercive manner.

How should we prioritise global surgery? A capabilities approach argument for the place of surgery within every health system

In the rapidly evolving landscape of global health issues and policy, surgery has historically been sidelined due to concerns about high cost, complexity and other concerns including quantitatively less surgical...

Debate: Should the loss of disability adjusted life years (DALY) define the focus of Global Hematology?: The case for prioritizing capacity building in anemia management and blood transfusion

Setting priorities in healthcare is always contentious given the array of possible services at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of care, not to mention potential public health interventions. The central goals in global policy have been reducing inequity within and between countries, protecting vulnerable groups (particularly women and children) and reducing the major communicable diseases which have historically been a major burden in lower- and middle-income countries. Here limited relative and absolute spending on healthcare have spurred a series of initiatives in Global Health over the last 50 years which have led to significant gains in measures of morbidity and mortality.Against this background there remains the continuing question of how to adapt current medical practice in higher income countries for training and planning of services in lower- and middle-income countries. Here, the historical development of Global Health is outlined, and lessons drawn from the surveys of the global burden of disease and health economic analysis to understand how we can apply these principles to define Global Hematology.It remains likely that in lower-income countries effort should be concentrated on developing laboratory services and blood transfusion, to allow safe and effective support for the assessment of treatment of anemia, sickle cell disease, maternal and child health and urgent surgery and obstetric services. However, the principles of Global Health, could also be used for hematological malignancies to develop a framework for Global Hematology for all settings.

Discrimination Based on Personal Responsibility: Luck Egalitarianism and Healthcare Priority Setting.

Luck egalitarianism is a responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. Its application to health and healthcare is controversial. This article addresses a novel critique of luck egalitarianism, namely, that it wrongfully discriminates against those responsible for their health disadvantage when allocating scarce healthcare resources. The philosophical literature about discrimination offers two primary reasons for what makes discrimination wrong (when it is): harm and disrespect. These two approaches are employed to analyze whether luck egalitarian healthcare prioritization should be considered wrongful discrimination. Regarding harm, it is very plausible to consider the policies harmful but much less reasonable to consider those responsible for their health disadvantages a socially salient group. Drawing on the disrespect literature, where social salience is typically not required for something to be discrimination, the policies are a form of discrimination. They are, however, not disrespectful. The upshot of this first assessment of the discrimination objection to luck egalitarianism in health is, thus, that it fails.

Should Severity Assessments in Healthcare Priority Setting be Risk- and Time-Sensitive?

Background: Severity plays an essential role in healthcare priority setting. Still, severity is an under-theorised concept. One controversy concerns whether severity should be risk- and/or time-sensitive. The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of this question. Methods: A reflective equilibrium approach is used, where judgements and arguments concerning severity in preventive situations are related to overall normative judgements and background theories in priority-setting, aiming for consistency. Analysis, discussion, and conclusions: There is an argument for taking the risk of developing a condition into account, and we do this when we consider the risk of dying in the severity assessment. If severity is discounted according to risk, this will ‘dilute’ severity, depending on how well we are able to delineate the population, which is dependent on the current level of knowledge. This will potentially have a more far-reaching effect when considering primary prevention, potentially the de-prioritisation of effective preventive treatments in relation to acute, less-effective treatments. The risk arguments are dependent on which population is being assessed. If we focus on the whole population at risk, with T0 as the relevant population, this supports the risk argument. If we instead focus on the population of as-yet (at T0) unidentified individuals who will develop the condition at T1, risk will become irrelevant, and severity will not be risk sensitive. The strongest argument for time-sensitive severity (or for discounting future severity) is the future development of technology. On a short timescale, this will differ between different diagnoses, supporting individualised discounting. On a large timescale, a more general discounting might be acceptable. However, we need to also consider the systemic effects of allowing severity to be risk- and time-sensitive.