Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO)

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Claudia-Marcela Vélez , Lydia Kapiriri , Elysee Nouvet , Susan Goold , Bernardo Aguilera , Iestyn Williams , Marion Danis , Beverley M. Essue
{"title":"Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO)","authors":"Claudia-Marcela Vélez ,&nbsp;Lydia Kapiriri ,&nbsp;Elysee Nouvet ,&nbsp;Susan Goold ,&nbsp;Bernardo Aguilera ,&nbsp;Iestyn Williams ,&nbsp;Marion Danis ,&nbsp;Beverley M. Essue","doi":"10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region’s COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><p>There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country’s economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34527,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0e/ff/main.PMC9683850.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590229622000211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background

The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region’s COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting.

Methods

The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison.

Results

All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS.

Discussion and conclusion

There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country’s economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

审查国家COVID-19大流行计划中的重点设定:来自世卫组织-东南亚区域国家的案例研究
世界卫生组织-东南亚区域(WHO-SEARO)占全球COVID-19确诊病例和死亡总数的近17%。虽然文献记录了世卫组织- searo的COVID-19应对不力,但没有讨论在该地区的COVID-19应对中纳入优先事项设置(PS)可以在多大程度上影响/减轻这种情况。本文的目的是描述来自世卫组织-东南亚国家组织样本的COVID-19计划在多大程度上包括优先确定。方法对WHO-SEARO 11个国家中7个国家的COVID-19大流行应对和准备规划文件进行分析。我们描述了文件化的优先顺序设定过程遵守20个既定有效PS质量指标的程度,并进行了跨国比较。结果所有审查的计划都描述了COVID-19大流行期间所需的资源。大多数(但不是全部)计划都展示了政治意愿,并描述了涉众的参与。然而,这些计划都没有清晰地描述PS过程,包括正式的PS框架和PS标准。总体而言,大多数方案仅包含有限数量的有效PS质量指标。讨论与结论在所审查的方案中,有效PS的参数差异很大。但是,计划中提出的参数与该国的经济、卫生系统以及大流行病和PS的情况和经验之间没有系统差异。该流行病的政治性质及其对资源的高需求可能影响了所有计划中明显的参数的列入。这些计划没有包括有效PS的大多数循证参数,这一发现突出表明,需要进一步研究各国如何在各自背景下实施优先事项设定,并更深入地了解被认为相关的参数。进一步的研究应探讨和描述实施确定的优先事项的经验,以及这种决策对每个国家大流行结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Policy Open
Health Policy Open Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信