Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287082›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2025

Setting priorities for healthcare interventions in Indonesia: a comprehensive conceptual framework.

Mohammed Alfaqeeh, Neily Zakiyah, Maarten J Postma, Auliya A Suwantika

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohammed AlfaqeehDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, 45363, Indonesia.
Neily ZakiyahDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, 45363, Indonesia. neily.zakiyah@unpad.ac.id.
Maarten J PostmaCenter of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Care Innovation, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.
Auliya A SuwantikaDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, 45363, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health priority setting is a fundamental aspect of public health decision-making in Indonesia, a country characterized by its vast geographic diversity, large population, and evolving healthcare challenges. Given the complex and varied health needs across the country, effective prioritization of healthcare interventions is essential for optimizing resource allocation and improving health outcomes. This study aims to explore the current healthcare priority-setting strategies in Indonesia and identify opportunities to enhance their implementation to support the achievement of universal health coverage (UHC). We conducted a narrative review of relevant literature using the medical databases PubMed and EMBASE, supplemented by a manual review of reference lists and key policy documents. Key findings reveal that the criteria for health intervention prioritization in Indonesia include disease burden, intervention effectiveness, cost, acceptability, and fairness. However, challenges persist in the consistent application of these criteria across Indonesia’s diverse regions, further compounded by disparities in infrastructure, governance, and data availability. In terms of healthcare priority setting, Indonesia combines technical approaches like Health Technology Assessment and Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis with value-based methods such as the Delphi Technique and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, focusing on equity, fairness, and stakeholder engagement. Limitations in current approaches for healthcare priority setting further complicate the process. Additionally, ethical and social considerations sometimes conflict with economic or technical priorities, underscoring the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation of health priority setting practices. These complexities highlight that while Indonesia has made significant strides, areas for improvement remain to ensure equitable and effective healthcare allocation. Using Indonesia as a reference case, this paper emphasizes the importance of integrating evidence-based priority setting within the framework of UHC to improve healthcare access and equity in Indonesia. This analysis equips stakeholders with the knowledge necessary to navigate Indonesia’s complex healthcare landscape and drive initiatives aimed at achieving better health outcomes and the well-being of its population.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesDecision MakingHealth PolicyHumansIndonesiaUniversal Health InsuranceDecision-makingHealthcare accessHealth outcomesPolicy implicationsResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID41287082
PMCPMC12642239

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.