ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2024
The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The use of deliberative dialogue in health services research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- From implicit to explicit: an evidence-informed deliberative process for health benefits package revision using the WHO UHC Compendium in Kyrgyzstan.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Governance absorption of volume-based procurement: study of dual-track implementation in a public hospital.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Health Benefit Package Revision Is an Art as Much as a Science - Lessons Learned on the Organization of the Appraisal Phase.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Pakistan's Progress on Universal Health Coverage: Lessons Learned in Priority Setting and Challenges Ahead in Reinforcing Primary Healthcare.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Review
- Addressing the UHC Challenge Using the Disease Control Priorities 3 Approach: Lessons Learned and an Overview of the Pakistan Experience.International journal of health policy and management · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages.
methodsWe planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process.
resultsThe key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process.
conclusionDespite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.
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.