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

被引:9
作者
Velez, Claudia-Marcela [1 ,2 ]
Kapiriri, Lydia [1 ,9 ]
Nouvet, Elysee [3 ]
Goold, Susan [4 ]
Aguilera, Bernardo [5 ]
Williams, Iestyn [6 ]
Danis, Marion [7 ]
Essue, Beverley M. [8 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Aging & Soc, 1280 Main St West,Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, ON L8S 4M4, Canada
[2] Univ Antioquia, Fac Med, Cra 51D 62-29, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia
[3] Western Univ, Sch Hlth Studies, 1151 Richmond St, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
[4] Univ Michigan, Ctr Bioeth & Social Sci Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48100 USA
[5] Univ San Sebastian, Fac Med & Ciencia, Santiago, Chile
[6] Univ Birmingham, Hlth Serv Management Ctr, 40 Edgbaston Pk Rd, Birmingham B15 2RT, England
[7] NIH, Dept Bioeth, Bethesda, MD USA
[8] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, 155 Coll St W, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
[9] 1280 Main St West,Kenneth Taylor Hall Room 226, Hamilton, ON L8S 4M4, Canada
来源
HEALTH POLICY OPEN | 2022年 / 3卷
关键词
Priority setting; COVID; WHO; SEARO; Preparedness and response;
D O I
10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100086
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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 decisionmaking on the pandemic outcomes in each country.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Macro level influences on strategic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - an international survey and tool for national assessments
    Ahmad, Raheelah
    Atun, Rifat A.
    Birgand, Gabriel
    Castro-Sanchez, Enrique
    Charani, Esmita
    Ferlie, Ewan B.
    Hussain, Izhar
    Kambugu, Andrew
    Labarca, Jaime
    Hara, Gabriel Levy
    McKee, Martin
    Mendelson, Marc
    Singh, Sanjeev
    Varma, Jay
    Zhu, Nina J.
    Zingg, Walter
    Holmes, Alison H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GLOBAL HEALTH, 2021, 11 : 1 - 11
  • [2] Pandemic preparedness and response to COVID-19 in South Asian countries
    Babu, Giridhara R.
    Khetrapal, Sonalini
    John, Daisy A.
    Deepa, R.
    Narayan, K. M. Venkat
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2021, 104 : 169 - 174
  • [3] Bezbaruah Supriya, 2021, WHO South East Asia Journal of Public Health, V10, pS41
  • [4] Bhutan Ministry of Health, 2020, National Preparedness and Response Plan for Outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), V4th
  • [5] Counahan M, 2018, Work Pap, P56
  • [6] Dionne F, 2021, Healthc Manag Forum, P5
  • [7] COVID-19 and ASEAN responses: Comparative policy analysis
    Djalante, Riyanti
    Nurhidayah, Laely
    Hoang Van Minh
    Phuong, Nguyen Thi Ngoc
    Mahendradhata, Yodi
    Trias, Angelo
    Lassa, Jonatan
    Miller, Michelle Ann
    [J]. PROGRESS IN DISASTER SCIENCE, 2020, 8
  • [8] Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19
    Emanuel, Ezekiel J.
    Persad, Govind
    Upshur, Ross
    Thome, Beatriz
    Parker, Michael
    Glickman, Aaron
    Zhang, Cathy
    Boyle, Connor
    Smith, Maxwell
    Phillips, James P.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2020, 382 (21) : 2049 - 2055
  • [9] GHS Index, About us
  • [10] GHS Index, GHSI Index News