Lydia Kapiriri

Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world.

This paper is the third in the Child Development Series. The first paper showed that more than 200 million children under 5 years of age in developing countries do not reach their developmental potential. The second paper identified four well-documented risks: stunting, iodine deficiency, iron deficiency anaemia, and inadequate cognitive stimulation, plus four potential risks based on epidemiological evidence: maternal depression, violence exposure, environmental contamination, and malaria. This paper assesses strategies to promote child development and to prevent or ameliorate the loss of developmental potential. The most effective early child development programmes provide direct learning experiences to children and families, are targeted toward younger and disadvantaged children, are of longer duration, high quality, and high intensity, and are integrated with family support, health, nutrition, or educational systems and services. Despite convincing evidence, programme coverage is low. To achieve the Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty and ensuring primary school completion for both girls and boys, governments and civil society should consider expanding high quality, cost-effective early child development programmes.

Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies

Objective  To assess and summarize empirical studies on priority‐setting in developing countries.

Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis

This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria.The guidance was develop through a series of expert consultation meetings and involved three steps: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders.The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research : tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa

As part of a series on maternal, neonatal, and child health in sub-Saharan Africa, Igor Rudan and colleagues discuss various priority-setting tools for health care and research that can help develop evidence-based policy.

A Strategy to Improve Priority Setting in Developing Countries

Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. Priority setting in developing countries is fraught with uncertainty due to lack of credible information, weak priority setting institutions, and unclear priority setting processes. Efforts to improve priority setting in these contexts have focused on providing information and tools. In this paper we argue that priority setting is a value laden and political process, and although important, the available information and tools are not sufficient to address the priority setting challenges in developing countries. Additional complementary efforts are required. Hence, a strategy to improve priority setting in developing countries should also include: (i) capturing current priority setting practices, (ii) improving the legitimacy and capacity of institutions that set priorities, and (iii) developing fair priority setting processes.

Successful Priority Setting in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Framework for Evaluation

Priority setting remains a big challenge for health managers and planners, yet there is paucity of literature on evaluating priority setting. The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. We conducted a qualitative study involving a review of literature and Delphi interviews with respondents knowledgeable of priority setting in low and middle income countries. Respondents were asked to identify the measures of successful priority setting in low and middle income countries. Responses were grouped as: immediate internal or external/delayed internal or external. We also identified some pre-requisites for successful priority setting. The immediate internal measures included increased efficiency in decision making, improved quality of decisions and fairer priority setting. Immediate External measures included—improved public understanding and acceptance of decisions, increased public participation, increased trust. DelayedInternal measures included increased satisfaction, understanding, compliance, balanced budget, achievement of organization goals, and improved internal accountability. Delayed External measures include impact on policy and practice, improved population health and reduction of health inequalities, achievement of health system goals and strengthening of health care systems. Identified pre-requisites for successful priority setting included; the presence of credible priority setting institutions, incentives for participation and implementation and resources, capacity and political will to implement. These would be augmented in a conducive political, social and economic context. This framework, although not exhaustive, provides a practical basis for planning and evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries.

Bedside rationing by health practitioners: a case study in a Ugandan hospital.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to describe bedside rationing by health practitioners in a teaching hospital in Uganda. Methods. This was a case study involving in-depth interviews. A modified thematic approach was used in data analysis. Types of decisions, the decision-making process, key players, and hospital-, medical-, and patient-related considerations in the process were identified. Klein’s 6 forms of rationing were used to identify the forms of rationing used. The setting was a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Theoretical sampling was used to identify 40 doctors and 16 nurses from the Departments of Medicine, Surgery, Paediatrics, and Obstetric and Gynaecology. Results. Four types of bedside rationing decisions were identified: 1) which patients are seen first, 2) which treatment the patients receive, 3) which patients are admitted, and 4) which patients are taken to the operating theatre first. Hospital-related considerations regarding bedside rationing included the hospital budget and number of beds; medical-related considerations included the patient’s diagnosis and effectiveness of treatment; and patient-related considerations included poverty, social status, and age. All forms of rationing (denial, dilution, deflection, deterrence, delay, and termination) were practiced. Conclusion. Although bedside rationing decisions in the study hospital seem somewhat similar to that in developed countries, the rationing of 1st-line drugs by health practitioners in Uganda is complex, difficult, and different from what has been described in industrialized countries. The complexity and severity of the consequences of the bedside decisions necessitate the development of resource-sensitive clinical guidelines and transparent decision-making processes to foster patients’ understanding of the reasons and the procedures and to ensure fair decision-making processes.

Whose priorities count? Comparison of community-identified health problems and Burden-of-Disease-assessed health priorities in a district in Uganda.

Objectives The aim of the study was to compare health problems as defined quantitatively by the Burden of Disease study to those defined by the community. The secondary aim was to explore the potential for using qualitative participatory methodologies as tools for planing and priority setting.

How effective has the essential health package been in improving priority setting in low income countries

The Essential Health Care Package (EHP) approach has been promoted as a tool for guiding priority setting (PS) in Low Income Countries (LICs). This approach was expected to improve PS by; (i) providing credible evidence, (ii) improving efficiency, (iii) making PS more transparent, explicit and objective, (iv) increasing public empowerment and accountability; and (v) improving equity. To date, there is paucity of literature discussing the degree to which the EHP approach has met these expectations. This review paper fills this gap. We demonstrate that the EHP approach has only marginally met some of the above expectations. While this has been blamed on the lack of resources and capacity to deliver the package, we argue that limited attention paid to the PS process and the context, failure to institute and strengthen the capacity of PS institutions, and lack of an inbuilt process of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the approach, may have also contributed to the EHPs not meeting its expectations. While we use the example of the EHP approach, this discussion is relevant to any PS approach and the proposed recommendations (if implemented), would contribute to strengthening PS in LICs.

The case for conducting first-in-human (phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials in low and middle income countries

BackgroundDespite the increase in the number of clinical trials in low and middle income countries (LMICs), there has been little serious discussion of whether First in Human (FIH; phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials should be conducted in LMICs, and if so, under what conditions. Based on our own experience, studies and consultations, this paper aims to stimulate debate on our contention that for products meant primarily for conditions most prevalent in LMICs, FIH trials should preferably be done first in those countries.DiscussionThere are scientific and pragmatic arguments that support conducting FIH trials in LMIC. Furthermore, the changing product-development and regulatory landscape, and the likelihood of secondary benefits such as capacity building for innovation and for research ethics support our argument. These arguments take into account the critical importance of protecting human subjects of research while developing capacity to undertake FIH trials.SummaryWhile FIH trials have historically not been conducted in LMICs, the situation in some of these countries has changed. Hence, we have argued that FIH should be conducted in LMICs for products meant primarily for conditions that are most prevalent in those contexts; provided the necessary protections for human subjects are sufficient.