ArticleBMJ global health2026
From implicit to explicit: an evidence-informed deliberative process for health benefits package revision using the WHO UHC Compendium in Kyrgyzstan.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranslating universal health coverage (UHC) commitments into explicit, evidence-informed benefits packages remains a challenge for many resource-constrained health systems. This paper describes the methods and findings of a full-system benefits package revision applying the WHO Universal Health Coverage Compendium (UHCC) within an evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) to redesign the State-Guaranteed Benefits Programme in Kyrgyzstan.
methodsThe revision was carried out using the UHCC, following an EDP. The UHCC provided standardised service definitions and resource requirements for analysis. An assessment and appraisal process incorporated technical analysis and governance oversight through the Health Policy Council. The costing methodology estimated input costs per service and multiple financing scenarios were developed with decision-makers to explore coverage-cost trade-offs.
resultsThe revision was conducted over 2023-2025, with the Health Policy Council endorsing key methodological decisions. Technical evidence on cost, impact and equity was generated for all services. Through deliberative appraisal, 182 services were prioritised as essential. With an available fiscal space of US$19 per capita, only 66 essential services could be financed under fully public funding. A mixed public-private financing scenario maintained comprehensive essential service coverage while reducing public costs.
conclusionKyrgyzstan's experience demonstrates that comprehensive, evidence-informed revision of benefits package is feasible in resource-constrained settings when supported by political commitment, strong governance, global tools, structured deliberation and integrated costing. Use of the WHO UHCC enabled standardised service definitions. The approach offers practical lessons for countries seeking to institutionalise priority setting and strengthen progress towards UHC.
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.