A 10-Step Method for Fair Priority-Setting Processes: A Qualitative Case Study from Zanzibar

Résumé fourni par la source

Health systems worldwide face challenges in managing resource scarcity, necessitating systematic and fair approaches to prioritize essential health services. Practical guidance on structuring transparent and inclusive priority setting processes remains limited. This paper presents a 10-step method for designing fair priority-setting processes, demonstrated through the revision of the Zanzibar Essential Health Care Package (2019-2022). The 10-step method provides pragmatic and context-specific guidance, bridging the gap between global frameworks and local implementation in resource-limited settings. These 10 steps build upon recognized and accepted conditions and principles for health priorities and include: (1) development of a roadmap, (2) establishment of management, (3) selection of criteria for priority setting, (4) identification of candidate interventions, (5) formulation of financing strategies, (6) evidence generation, (7) employment of analytics, (8) setting priorities, (9) implementation arrangement, and (10) monitoring and evaluation to track implementation. The core team guided each step based on three fundamental principles-stakeholder involvement, transparency, and structured deliberation. In Zanzibar, consensus-building workshops were held to determine the criteria for setting priorities: cost-effectiveness, budget impact, disease burden, and equity. Political/public acceptability emerged as an additional criterion due to the challenges associated with including abortion services. Financial risk protection was deemed significant but was instead incorporated into the implementation and health financing plans. The core team offered preliminary training sessions on health priorities to stakeholders. This structured 10-step method encourages participation and inclusivity of marginalized groups usually excluded from such discussions, trust, and legitimacy in Essential Health Care Package processes, thereby providing policymakers with a tool for improvement.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.