Priority Setting Process Research Articles

A three-country survey of public attitudes towards the use of rationing criteria to set healthcare priorities between patients

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore and compare citizens’ attitudes in Portugal, Bulgaria and Croatia towards rationing criteria that should support an explicit priority setting process at the micro level.Design/methodology/approachPreferences were collected through an online questionnaire containing 14 statements concerning lottery, economic and person-based priority criteria. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each criterion. Non-parametric tests were applied to compare the levels of agreement among 355, 298 and 243 Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents, respectively.FindingsThe three groups of respondents appear to be concerned with both a fair and efficient allocation of resources. The severity of health conditions and patient’s age were the criteria most accepted by the respondents. This study suggests that Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents have similar social values concerning patient prioritization, although the Portuguese adhere slightly more to efficiency criteria and less to person-based and lottery criteria than Bulgarian and Croatian respondents.Practical implicationsA majority of respondents across the three countries report having opinion about the bedside rationing criteria. Portuguese, Bulgarian and Croatian respondents accept a combination of personal and economic criteria in patient’s prioritization.Originality/valueThis study represents the first attempt to compare citizen’s opinions of three member states of the European Union.Paper typeResearch paper

PCN307 - APPLYING MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA) AS AN EVIDENCE BASED HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE DECISION MAKING IN EGYPT

To move from a “lowest price” policy to a value-based price evaluation through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), decisions makers, especially those in emerging countries, need to understand how to identify and prioritize the criteria that matters most in their population. The objective of the study is to raise the awareness of decision makers on using MCDA in health care decision making in Egypt and to do a real application on how to develop a rating tool to assess mesothelioma interventions; pemetrexed and gemcitabine. An MCDA framework was developed using multiple criteria for the evaluation of pemetrexed and gemcitabine, using a numerical scoring system on a scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion. A Delphi study was then performed to discuss a final list of criteria with clear definitions and potential scoring scales. An appraisal group was convened and participants were asked to express their individual perspectives, by assigning weights to each criterion of the MCDA model. Participants then assigned performance scores for each medicine using available evidence and real-world evidence. MCDA estimates of perceived value were calculated by combining normalized weights and scores. This study resulted in a preliminary rating tool for assessing mesothelioma interventions in Egypt. The tool consists of 11 criteria covering context of drugs, outcomes of drugs, economics and quality of evidence, with clear definitions and potential scoring scales. By calculating the total aggregate score using average weight and average score assigned to each pemetrexed and gemcitabine on each decision criteria of the MCDA model. Pemetrexed got the highest total aggregate score equal to 1.07 compared to gemcitabine 0.99 of the MCDA models. This study describes the development of a rating tool to assess mesothelioma interventions in Egypt. This tool may contribute to a more transparent priority-setting process and fairer decision-making.

Addressing Challenges to Building Resilience Through Interdisciplinary Research and Engagement

Resilient communities are less affected by, and recover faster from, natural disasters. To be resilient in rapidly changing contemporary environments subject to the effects of complex factors such as climate change and urbanization, communities must effectively and efficiently adapt to new conditions to minimize future risks. To develop resilience, the hazards to which the community is exposed and vulnerable (i.e., future hurricanes, subsidence, salt water intrusion) must be accurately assessed, the systems (i.e., natural, built, and social) must be well understood, and the community must be engaged in the proactive planning and priority setting process. An approach to building resilience that utilizes the adaptive capacity of planning highlights opportunities to work collaboratively across disciplines to incorporate models and data from different disciplines to reduce uncertainty. We present one interdisciplinary group's approach to addressing challenges to building resilience through proactive planning, including: (1) characterizing hazards more accurately; (2) improving understanding of the vulnerability of natural (e.g., climate and infrastructure) systems subject to hazards; and (3) capturing potential synergies from interactions between planning and policies that govern decisions about the design of human settlements in hazardous areas.

Positioning the Health Services Research Workforce for Continued Success: Recommendations from AcademyHealth Stakeholders.

AcademyHealth established a Workforce Initiative Task Force in 2016 to conduct an assessment of the state of the health services research workforce and develop recommendations for its future in the context of the changing health care and research ecosystems. This assessment included four components: a series of commissioned papers, an online priority setting process, a multistakeholder summit, and final analysis by the AcademyHealth Education Council. This paper presents this process and the resultant list of prioritized recommendations and planned next steps.

Knowledge Translation in Practice: Exploring the Potential Use of MCDA in Central America and the Caribbean

The interest on Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for healthcare priority setting has grown in popularity in the last few years. Literature shows several exercises where MCDA can be used to inform different types of priorities; however, there is little evidence on the feasibility of implementing this method in current institutionalized decision-making processes. We examined the willingness to implement MCDA as a tool to facilitate decision-making in Central America and the Caribbean (CAC). We convene 41 representatives of the healthcare public sector from 10 countries to explore whether they consider MCDA a robust tool to be incorporated in local priority setting processes and which ongoing decision-making process could be benefited from this methodology. We developed a 2-days hands-on training course to explain the technique, advantages and limitations. The group achieved a broad consensus that MCDA can be used in CAC to help priority setting processes because it introduces transparency, facilitates the implementation of a systematic process and is relatively easy to explain to many stakeholders. It was acknowledged that MCDA can be used to inform decisions about coverage, though a major opportunity was identified to help informing other decisions, such as priorities for joint purchasing and the elaboration of national plans.

Migration and health: a global public health research priority

BackgroundWith 244 million international migrants, and significantly more people moving within their country of birth, there is an urgent need to engage with migration at all levels in order to support progress towards global health and development targets. In response to this, the 2nd Global Consultation on Migration and Health– held in Colombo, Sri Lanka in February 2017 – facilitated discussions concerning the role of research in supporting evidence-informed health responses that engage with migration.ConclusionsDrawing on discussions with policy makers, research scholars, civil society, and United Nations agencies held in Colombo, we emphasize the urgent need for quality research on international and domestic (in-country) migration and health to support efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs aim to ‘leave no-one behind’ irrespective of their legal status. An ethically sound human rights approach to research that involves engagement across multiple disciplines is required. Researchers need to be sensitive when designing and disseminating research findings as data on migration and health may be misused, both at an individual and population level. We emphasize the importance of creating an ‘enabling environment’ for migration and health research at national, regional and global levels, and call for the development of meaningful linkages – such as through research reference groups – to support evidence-informed inter-sectoral policy and priority setting processes.

Constructing citizen engagement in health research priority-setting to attend to dynamics of power and difference.

Engaging citizens is vital to achieving people-centred health research. This paper aims to put attention to dynamics of power and dynamics of difference back at the centre of citizen engagement in health research priority-setting. Without attention to power and difference, engagement can lead to presence without voice and voice without influence, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised groups. By analysing six key bodies of literature, the paper first identifies the different components of engagement-who initiates, for what purpose, who participates, and how they participate-and the dynamics of power and dynamics of difference relevant to them. For each component of engagement, the ethical considerations relating to those dimensions of power and dimensions of difference are characterised for the research priority-setting context and preliminary guidance on how they might be addressed is provided. An initial framework comprised of a series of questions reflecting these ethical considerations has been developed for use by researchers and citizens when designing engagement processes for research projects. Where researchers and citizens attend to the framework's questions and then revise their priority-setting processes' design to better represent diversity and mitigate power disparities, more inclusive citizen engagement is promoted. Disadvantaged and marginalised groups are more likely to be present and heard, which, in turn, will help generate research projects with topics and questions that encompass and more accurately reflect their health needs.

PRIORITIZATION OF THE LAUNCH OF ICT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THROUGH LINGUISTIC MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING

The market launch of new products and services is a basic pillar for large and medium-sized companies in the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) sector. Choosing the right moment for it is usually a differentiating factor in terms of competition, since it is a source of competitive advantage. There are several mechanisms and strategies to address this problem from the market perspective. However, the criteria of the different actors involved – managers, sales representatives, experts, etc. – coexist in the corporate sphere and they often differ, causing difficulties in priority setting processes in the launch of a product or service. The assessment of the prioritization of these criteria is usually expressed in natural language, thus adding a great deal of uncertainty. Fuzzy linguistic models have proved to be an efficient tool for managing the intrinsic uncertainty of this type of information. This paper presents a linguistic multi-criteria decision-making model, able to reconcile the different requirements and viewpoints existing in the corporate sector when planning the launch of new products and services. The proposed model is based on the fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic model, aimed at managing linguistic data expressing different corporate criteria, without compromising accuracy in the calculation of said data. In order to illustrate this, a practical case study is presented, in which the model is applied for scheduling the launch prioritization of several new products and services by a telecommunications company, within the deadlines set in its strategic planning.

Clinicians' perceptions of medication errors with opioids in cancer and palliative care services: a priority setting report.

This paper reports the findings of a priority setting process, undertaken with cancer and palliative care clinicians, to better understand the characteristics of medication errors with opioids within their services. Participants representing six public hospitals in one Australian state took part in a series of priority setting workshops and, drawing on actual incidents occurring in their services, sought to identify where in the opioid medication process errors were most frequently occurring. Opioid error types and perceived contributing factors were explored, and strategies to reduce/prevent opioid errors were proposed. The priority setting process provided valuable insights into the types of opioid errors that occur in cancer and palliative care services and the complexity of addressing opioid errors from the clinician's perspective. The findings from this priority setting process will inform future targeted quality improvement initiatives to support safe opioid medication practices in cancer and palliative care services.

Identification of publicly available data sources to inform the conduct of Health Technology Assessment in India.

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) provides a globally-accepted and structured approach to synthesising evidence for cost and clinical effectiveness alongside ethical and equity considerations to inform evidence-based priorities. India is one of the most recent countries to formally commit to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the heath resource allocation decision-making process. The effective conduct of HTA depends on the availability of reliable data. Methods: We draw from our experience of collecting, synthesizing, and analysing health-related datasets in India and internationally, to highlight the complex requirements for undertaking HTA, and explore the availability of such data in India. We first outlined each of the core data components required for the conduct of HTA, and their availability in India, drawing attention to where data can be accessed, and different ways in which researchers can overcome the challenges of missing or low quality data. Results: We grouped data into the following categories: clinical efficacy; cost; epidemiology; quality of life; service use/consumption; and equity. We identified numerous large local data sources containing epidemiological information. There was a marked absence of other locally-collected data necessary for informing HTA, particularly data relating to cost, service use, and quality of life. Conclusions: The introduction of HTA into the health policy space in India provides an opportunity to comprehensively assess the availability and quality of health data capture across the country. While epidemiological information is routinely collected across India, other data inputs necessary for HTA are not readily available. This poses a significant bottleneck to the efficient generation and deployment of HTA into the health decision space. Overcoming these data gaps by strengthening the routine collection of comprehensive and verifiable health data will have important implications not only for embedding economic analyses into the priority setting process, but for strengthening the health system as a whole.

Describing and evaluating healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya.

SummaryBackgroundHealthcare priority setting research has focused at the macro (national) and micro (patient level), while there is a dearth of literature on meso‐level (subnational/regional) priority setting practices. In this study, we aimed to describe and evaluate healthcare priority setting practices at the county level in Kenya.MethodsWe used a qualitative case study approach to examine the planning and budgeting processes in 2 counties in Kenya. We collected the data through in‐depth interviews of senior managers, middle‐level managers, frontline managers, and health partners (n = 23) and document reviews. We analyzed the data using a framework approach.FindingsThe planning and budgeting processes in both counties were characterized by misalignment and the dominance of informal considerations in decision making. When evaluated against consequential conditions, efficiency and equity considerations were not incorporated in the planning and budgeting processes. Stakeholders were more satisfied and understood the planning process compared with the budgeting process. There was a lack of shifting of priorities and unsatisfactory implementation of decisions. Against procedural conditions, the planning process was more inclusive and transparent and stakeholders were more empowered compared with the budgeting process. There was ineffective use of data, lack of provisions for appeal and revisions, and limited mechanisms for incorporating community values in the planning and budgeting.ConclusionCounty governments can improve the planning and budgeting processes by aligning them, implementing a systematic priority setting process with explicit resource allocation criteria, and adhering to both consequential and procedural aspects of an ideal priority setting process.

Identification of publicly available data sources to inform the conduct of Health Technology Assessment in India

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) provides a globally-accepted and structured approach to synthesising evidence for cost and clinical effectiveness alongside ethical and equity considerations to inform evidence-based priorities. India is one of the most recent countries to formally commit to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the heath resource allocation decision-making process. The effective conduct of HTA depends on the availability of reliable data. Methods: We draw from our experience of collecting, synthesizing, and analysing health-related datasets in India and internationally, to highlight the complex requirements for undertaking HTA, and explore the availability of such data in India. We first outlined each of the core data components required for the conduct of HTA, and their availability in India, drawing attention to where data can be accessed, and different ways in which researchers can overcome the challenges of missing or low quality data. Results: We grouped data into the following categories: clinical efficacy; cost; epidemiology; quality of life; service use/consumption; and equity. We identified numerous large local data sources containing epidemiological information. There was a marked absence of other locally-collected data necessary for informing HTA, particularly data relating to cost, service use, and quality of life. Conclusions: The introduction of HTA into the health policy space in India provides an opportunity to comprehensively assess the availability and quality of health data capture across the country. While epidemiological information is routinely collected across India, other data inputs necessary for HTA are not readily available. This poses a significant bottleneck to the efficient generation and deployment of HTA into the health decision space. Overcoming these data gaps by strengthening the routine collection of comprehensive and verifiable health data will have important implications not only for embedding economic analyses into the priority setting process, but for strengthening the health system as a whole.

Reflections on the use of the World Health Organization's (WHO) OneHealth Tool: Implications for health planning in low and middle income countries (LMICs).

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to help low and middle income countries to develop their capacities for sector-wide priority setting. In 2016, we sought to use the OHT to aid the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), the national health insurer of the Philippines, in decisions to expand benefit packages using cost-effectiveness analyses. With technical support from the WHO, we convened health planning officers from the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) conduct generalized cost-effective analyses (GCEA) of selected un-financed noncommunicable disease interventions using OHT. We collected epidemiological and cost data through health facility surveys, review of literature such as cost libraries and clinical practice guidelines, and expert consultations. Although we were unable to use GCEA results directly to set policy, we learnt important policy lessons which we outline here that might help inform other countries looking to inform service coverage decisions. Additionally, the entire process and GCEA visualizations helped high-level policymakers in the health sector, who have traditionally relied on ad hoc decision making, to realize the need for a systematic and transparent priority-setting process that can continuously provide the evidence needed to inform service coverage decisions.

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.

BackgroundCurrent research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.Data sourcesHealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal.Study eligibility criteriai) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.Study appraisal and synthesisi) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.ResultsSeventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).LimitationsThe critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.ConclusionThe four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

Identification of publicly available data sources to inform the conduct of Health Technology Assessment in India

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) provides a globally-accepted and structured approach to synthesising evidence for cost and clinical effectiveness alongside ethical and equity considerations to inform evidence-based priorities. India is one of the most recent countries to formally commit to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the heath resource allocation decision-making process. The effective conduct of HTA depends on the availability of reliable data. Methods: We draw from our experience of collecting, synthesizing, and analysing health-related datasets in India and internationally, to highlight the complex requirements for undertaking HTA, and explore the availability of such data in India. We first outlined each of the core data components required for the conduct of HTA, and their availability in India, drawing attention to where data can be accessed, and different ways in which researchers can overcome the challenges of missing or low quality data. Results: We grouped data into the following categories: clinical efficacy; cost; epidemiology; quality of life; service use/consumption; and equity. We identified numerous large local data sources containing epidemiological information. There was a marked absence of other locally-collected data necessary for informing HTA, particularly data relating to cost, service use, and quality of life. Conclusions: The introduction of HTA into the health policy space in India provides an opportunity to comprehensively assess the availability and quality of health data capture across the country. While epidemiological information is routinely collected across India, other data inputs necessary for HTA are not readily available. This poses a significant bottleneck to the efficient generation and deployment of HTA into the health decision space. Overcoming these data gaps by strengthening the routine collection of comprehensive and verifiable health data will have important implications not only for embedding economic analyses into the priority setting process, but for strengthening the health system as a whole.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature.

Background:Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results:Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations:Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Reflections on the use of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) OneHealth Tool: Implications for health planning in low and middle income countries (LMICs)

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to help low and middle income countries to develop their capacities for sector-wide priority setting. In 2016, we sought to use the OHT to aid the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), the national health insurer of the Philippines, in decisions to expand benefit packages using cost-effectiveness analyses. With technical support from the WHO, we convened health planning officers from the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) conduct generalized cost-effective analyses (GCEA) of selected un-financed noncommunicable disease interventions using OHT. We collected epidemiological and cost data through health facility surveys, review of literature such as cost libraries and clinical practice guidelines, and expert consultations. Although we were unable to use GCEA results directly to set policy, we learnt important policy lessons which we outline here that might help inform other countries looking to inform service coverage decisions. Additionally, the entire process and GCEA visualizations helped high-level policymakers in the health sector, who have traditionally relied on ad hoc decision making, to realize the need for a systematic and transparent priority-setting process that can continuously provide the evidence needed to inform service coverage decisions.

Reflections on the use of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) OneHealth Tool: Implications for health planning in low and middle income countries (LMICs)

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to help low and middle income countries to develop their capacities for sector-wide priority setting. In 2016, we sought to use the OHT to aid the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), the national health insurer of the Philippines, in decisions to expand benefit packages using cost-effectiveness analyses. With technical support from the WHO, we convened health planning officers from the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) conduct generalized cost-effective analyses (GCEA) of selected un-financed noncommunicable disease interventions using OHT. We collected epidemiological and cost data through health facility surveys, review of literature such as cost libraries and clinical practice guidelines, and expert consultations. Although we were unable to use GCEA results directly to set policy, we learnt important policy lessons which we outline here that might help inform other countries looking to inform service coverage decisions. Additionally, the entire process and GCEA visualizations helped high-level policymakers in the health sector, who have traditionally relied on ad hoc decision making, to realize the need for a systematic and transparent priority-setting process that can continuously provide the evidence needed to inform service coverage decisions.

Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia.

International guidelines recommend countries to expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) to all HIV-infected individuals and establish local-level priorities in relation to other treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions through fair processes. However, no practical guidance is provided for such priority-setting processes. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) fill this gap and combine stakeholder deliberation to incorporate relevant social values with rational decision-making informed by evidence on these values. This study reports on the first-time implementation and evaluation of an EDP in HIV control, organised to support the AIDS Commission in West Java province, Indonesia, in the development of its strategic plan for 2014-2018. Under the responsibility of the provincial AIDS Commission, an EDP was implemented to select priority interventions using six steps: (i) situational analysis; (ii) formation of a multistakeholder Consultation Panel; (iii) selection of criteria; (iv) identification and assessment of interventions' performance; (v) deliberation; and (vi) selection of funding and implementing institutions. An independent researcher conducted in-depth interviews (n=21) with panel members to evaluate the process. The Consultation Panelincluded 23 stakeholders. They identified 50 interventions and these were evaluated against four criteria: impact on the epidemic, stigma reduction, cost-effectiveness and universal coverage. After a deliberative discussion, the Consultation Panelprioritised a combination of several treatment, prevention and mitigation interventions. The EDP improved both stakeholder involvement and the evidence base for the strategic planning process. EDPs fill an important gap which international guidelines and current tools for strategic planning in HIV control leave unaddressed.

Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature

Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.