ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2025
Health Benefit Package Revision Is an Art as Much as a Science - Lessons Learned on the Organization of the Appraisal Phase.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many low- and middle-income countries are designing or revising their health benefit packages (HBPs), with appraisal-prioritizing services for reimbursement-being a critical phase. This occurs in a complex landscape of multiple criteria, multiple stakeholders, limited evidence, budget constraints, and tight timelines, varying across countries. Existing guidance documents do not fully address these complexities, requiring analysts to balance methodological rigor with practical constraints. This editorial highlights four key themes in organizing appraisal: decision-making structures, trade-offs between criteria, final recommendations, and the use of cost-effectiveness evidence, thresholds, and budgets. These emerged as central challenges in HBP revisions in Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Pakistan, and Rwanda. We emphasize cross-country learning to address these challenges pragmatically, recognizing that high-quality, legitimate appraisal is as much an art as a science. More detailed documentation of appraisal processes is needed to refine HBP revision guidelines and strengthen priority-setting in health systems.
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.