| 1. |
- Baltussen, Rob, et al.
(författare)
-
Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa : development of programmatic guidance
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1478-7547. ; 11:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment.Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders' views and evidences of all sorts.We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bukachi, Salome A, et al.
(författare)
-
Healthcare priority setting in Kenya : a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework
- 2014
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Planning and Management. - : Wiley. - 0749-6753 .- 1099-1751. ; 29:4, s. 342-361
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In resource-poor settings, the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) has been identified as an important advance in priority setting that helps to operationalize fair priority setting in specific contexts. The four conditions of A4R are backed by theory, not evidence, that conformance with them improves the priority setting decisions. This paper describes the healthcare priority setting processes in Malindi district, Kenya, prior to the implementation of A4R in 2008 and evaluates the process for its conformance with the conditions for A4R. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key players in the Malindi district health system and a review of key policy documents and national guidelines show that the priority setting process in the district relies heavily on guidelines from the national level, making it more of a vertical, top-down orientation. Multilateral and donor agencies, national government, budgetary requirements, traditions and local culture influence the process. The four conditions of A4R are present within the priority setting process, albeit to varying degrees and referred to by different terms. There exists an opportunity for A4R to provide a guiding approach within which its four conditions can be strengthened and assessed to establish whether conformance helps improve on the priority setting process.
|
|
| 3. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
A systems perspective on the importance of global health strategy developments for accomplishing today’s Sustainable Development Goals
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 34:9, s. 635-645
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Priority setting within health systems has not led to accountable, fair and sustainable solutions to improving population health. Providers, users and other stakeholders each have their own health and service priorities based on selected evidence, own values, expertise and preferences. Based on a historical account, this article analyses if contemporary health systems are appropriate to optimize population health within the framework of cross cutting targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We applied a scoping review approach to identify and review literature of scientific databases and other programmatic web and library-based documents on historical and contemporary health systems policies and strategies at the global level. Early literature supported the 1977 launching of the global target of Health for All by the year 2000. Reviewed literature was used to provide a historical overview of systems components of global health strategies through describing the conceptualizations of health determinants, user involvement and mechanisms of priority setting over time, and analysing the importance of historical developments on barriers and opportunities to accomplish the SDGs. Definitions, scope and application of health systems-associated priority setting fluctuated and main health determinants and user influence on global health systems and priority setting remained limited. In exploring reasons for the identified lack of SDG-associated health systems and priority setting processes, we discuss issues of accountability, vested interests, ethics and democratic legitimacy as conditional for future sustainability of population health. To accomplish the SDGs health systems must engage beyond their own sector boundary. New approaches to Health in All Policies and One Health may be conducive for scaling up more democratic and inclusive priority setting processes based on proper process guidelines from successful pilots. Sustainable development depends on population preferences supported by technical and managerial expertise.
|
|
| 4. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
Accountable priority setting for trust in health systems : the need for research into a new approach for strengthening sustainable health action in developing countries
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 7, s. 23-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met. REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources : findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - : BioMed Central. - 1478-4505. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Priority-setting decisions are based on an important, but not sufficient set of values and thus lead to disagreement on priorities. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an ethics-based approach to a legitimate and fair priority-setting process that builds upon four conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement, which facilitate agreement on priority-setting decisions and gain support for their implementation. This paper focuses on the assessment of AFR within the project REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT). Methods: This intervention study applied an action research methodology to assess implementation of AFR in one district in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, respectively. The assessments focused on selected disease, program, and managerial areas. An implementing action research team of core health team members and supporting researchers was formed to implement, and continually assess and improve the application of the four conditions. Researchers evaluated the intervention using qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. Results: The values underlying the AFR approach were in all three districts well-aligned with general values expressed by both service providers and community representatives. There was some variation in the interpretations and actual use of the AFR in the decision-making processes in the three districts, and its effect ranged from an increase in awareness of the importance of fairness to a broadened engagement of health team members and other stakeholders in priority setting and other decision-making processes. Conclusions: District stakeholders were able to take greater charge of closing the gap between nationally set planning and the local realities and demands of the served communities within the limited resources at hand. This study thus indicates that the operationalization of the four broadly defined and linked conditions is both possible and seems to be responding to an actual demand. This provides arguments for the continued application and further assessment of the potential of AFR in supporting priority-setting and other decision-making processes in health systems to achieve better agreed and more sustainable health improvements linked to a mutual democratic learning with potential wider implications.
|
|
| 6. |
- Byskov, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
The Need for Global Application of the Accountability for Reasonableness Approach to Support Sustainable Outcomes Comment on "Expanded HTA Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management. - : Kerman University of Medical Sciences. - 2322-5939. ; 6:2, s. 115-118
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The accountability for reasonableness (AFR) concept has been developed and discussed for over two decades. Its interpretation has been studied in several ways partly guided by the specific settings and the researchers involved. This has again influenced the development of the concept, but not led to universal application. The potential use in health technology assessments (HTAs) has recently been identified by Daniels et al as yet another excellent justification for AFR-based process guidance that refers to both qualitative and a broader participatory input for HTA, but it has raised concerns from those who primarily support the consistency and objectivity of more quantitative and reproducible evidence. With reference to studies of AFR-based interventions and the through these repeatedly documented motivation for their consolidation, we argue that it can even be unethical not to take AFR conditions beyond their still mainly formative stage and test their application within routine health systems management for their expected support to more sustainable health improvements. The ever increasing evidence and technical expertise are necessary but at times contradictory and do not in isolation lead to optimally accountable, fair and sustainable solutions. Technical experts, politicians, managers, service providers, community members, and beneficiaries each have their own values, expertise and preferences, to be considered for necessary buy in and sustainability. Legitimacy, accountability and fairness do not come about without an inclusive and agreed process guidance that can reconcile differences of opinion and indeed differences in evidence to arrive at a by all understood, accepted, but not necessarily agreed compromise in a current context -until major premises for the decision change. AFR should be widely adopted in projects and services under close monitoring and frequent reviews.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kamuzora, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Promoting community participation in priority setting in district health systems : experiences from Mbarali district, Tanzania
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Global Health Action. - : CoAction Publishing. - 1654-9716 .- 1654-9880. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Community participation in priority setting in health systems has gained importance all over the world, particularly in resource-poor settings where governments have often failed to provide adequate public-sector services for their citizens. Incorporation of public views into priority setting is perceived as a means to restore trust, improve accountability, and secure cost-effective priorities within healthcare. However, few studies have reported empirical experiences of involving communities in priority setting in developing countries. The aim of this article is to provide the experience of implementing community participation and the challenges of promoting it in the context of resource-poor settings, weak organizations, and fragile democratic institutions.DESIGN: Key informant interviews were conducted with the Council Health Management Team (CHMT), community representatives, namely women, youth, elderly, disabled, and people living with HIV/AIDS, and other stakeholders who participated in the preparation of the district annual budget and health plans. Additionally, minutes from the Action Research Team and planning and priority-setting meeting reports were analyzed.RESULTS: A number of benefits were reported: better identification of community needs and priorities, increased knowledge of the community representatives about priority setting, increased transparency and accountability, promoted trust among health systems and communities, and perceived improved quality and accessibility of health services. However, lack of funds to support the work of the selected community representatives, limited time for deliberations, short notice for the meetings, and lack of feedback on the approved priorities constrained the performance of the community representatives. Furthermore, the findings show the importance of external facilitation and support in enabling health professionals and community representatives to arrive at effective working arrangement.CONCLUSION: Community participation in priority setting in developing countries, characterized by weak democratic institutions and low public awareness, requires effective mobilization of both communities and health systems. In addition, this study confirms that community participation is an important element in strengthening health systems.
|
|
| 8. |
- Maluka, Stephen, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania : evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Social Science and Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 0277-9536 .- 1873-5347. ; 71:4, s. 751-759
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Priority-setting has become one of the biggest challenges faced by health decision-makers worldwide. Fairness is a key goal of priority-setting and Accountability for Reasonableness has emerged as a guiding framework for fair priority-setting. This paper describes the processes of setting health care priorities in Mbarali district, Tanzania, and evaluates the descriptions against Accountability for Reasonableness. Key informant interviews were conducted with district health managers, local government officials and other stakeholders using a semi-structured interview guide. Relevant documents were also gathered and group priority-setting in the district was observed. The results indicate that, while Tanzania has a decentralized public health care system, the reality of the district level priority-setting process was that it was not nearly as participatory as the official guidelines suggest it should have been. Priority-setting usually occurred in the context of budget cycles and the process was driven by historical allocation. Stakeholders' involvement in the process was minimal. Decisions (but not the reasoning behind them) were publicized through circulars and notice boards, but there were no formal mechanisms in place to ensure that this information reached the public. There were neither formal mechanisms for challenging decisions nor an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that decisions were made in a fair and equitable manner. Therefore, priority-setting in Mbarali district did not satisfy all four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness; namely relevance, publicity, appeals and revision, and enforcement. This paper aims to make two important contributions to this problematic situation. First, it provides empirical analysis of priority-setting at the district level in the contexts of low-income countries. Second, it provides guidance to decision-makers on how to improve fairness, legitimacy, and sustainability of the priority-setting process.
|
|
| 9. |
- Maluka, Stephen, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania : a realist evaluation
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central. - 1748-5908. ; 6, s. Article nr 11-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Despite the growing importance of the Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework in priority setting worldwide, there is still an inadequate understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying its influence on legitimacy and fairness, as conceived and reflected in service management processes and outcomes. As a result, the ability to draw scientifically sound lessons for the application of the framework to services and interventions is limited. This paper evaluates the experiences of implementing the A4R approach in Mbarali District, Tanzania, in order to find out how the innovation was shaped, enabled, and constrained by the interaction between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.Methods: This study draws on the principles of realist evaluation - a largely qualitative approach, chiefly concerned with testing and refining programme theories by exploring the complex interactions of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Mixed methods were used in data collection, including individual interviews, non-participant observation, and document reviews. A thematic framework approach was adopted for the data analysis.Results: The study found that while the A4R approach to priority setting was helpful in strengthening transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and fairness, the efforts at integrating it into the current district health system were challenging. Participatory structures under the decentralisation framework, central government's call for partnership in district-level planning and priority setting, perceived needs of stakeholders, as well as active engagement between researchers and decision makers all facilitated the adoption and implementation of the innovation. In contrast, however, limited local autonomy, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and limited local resources were the major contextual factors that hampered the full implementation.Conclusion: This study documents an important first step in the effort to introduce the ethical framework A4R into district planning processes. This study supports the idea that a greater involvement and accountability among local actors through the A4R process may increase the legitimacy and fairness of priority-setting decisions. Support from researchers in providing a broader and more detailed analysis of health system elements, and the socio-cultural context, could lead to better prediction of the effects of the innovation and pinpoint stakeholders' concerns, thereby illuminating areas that require special attention to promote sustainability.
|
|
| 10. |
- Maluka, Stephen, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Improving district level health planning and priority setting in Tanzania through implementing accountability for reasonableness framework : perceptions of stakeholders
- 2010
-
Ingår i: BMC Health Services Research. - : BioMed Central. - 1472-6963. ; 10, s. Article nr 322-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In 2006, researchers and decision-makers launched a five year project, Response to Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems (REACT) to improve planning and priority setting through implementing the Accountability for Reasonableness framework in Mbarali District in Tanzania. The objective of this paper is to explore the acceptability of Accountability for Reasonableness from perspectives of the Council Health Management Team, local government officials, health workforce and members of user boards and committees.METHODS: Individual interviews were carried out with different categories of actors and stakeholders in the district. The interview guide consisted of a series of questions asking respondents to describe their perceptions regarding the applicability and feasibility of each condition of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework to priority setting. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Documentary data was used to support, verify and highlight key issues that emerged.RESULTS: Almost all stakeholders viewed Accountability for Reasonableness as an important and feasible approach for improving priority setting and health service delivery in their context. However, a few aspects of the Accountability for Reasonableness framework were seen as difficult to implement given the socio-political conditions and traditions in Tanzania. Respondents mentioned budget ceilings and guidelines, low level of public awareness, unreliable and untimely funding as well as limited capacity of the district to generate local resources as the major contextual factors that hamper the full implementation of the framework in their context.CONCLUSION: This study was one of the first assessments of the applicability of Accountability for Reasonableness in health care priority setting in Tanzania. The analysis, overall, suggests that the Accountability for Reasonableness framework could be an important tool for improving priority-setting process in the contexts of resource poor settings. However, the full implementation of Accountability for Reasonableness framework would require a proper capacity-building plan to all relevant stakeholders, particularly members of the community since public accountability is the ultimate aim, and it is the public that will live with the consequences of priority setting decisions.
|
|
