ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023
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".
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prioritizing policy issues for knowledge translation: a critical interpretive synthesis.Global health research and policy · 2025Pooled it
- Challenges in institutionalizing evidence-informed priority setting for health service packages: a qualitative document and interview analysis from Iran.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Moving Towards Effective and Efficient Implementation of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design: A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Country readiness and prerequisites for successful design and transition to implementation of essential packages of health services: experience from six countries.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- Enhancing Priority-Setting Decision-Making Process Through Use of Intersectionality for Public Participation.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.