Comparing priority received by global health issues: a measurement framework applied to tuberculosis, malaria, diarrhoeal diseases and dengue fever.

INTRODUCTION: The relative priority received by issues in global health agendas is subjected to impressionistic claims in the absence of objective methods of assessment of priority. To build an approach for conducting structured assessments of comparative priority health issues receive, we expand the public arenas model (2021) and offer a framework for future assessments of health issue priority in global and national health agendas. METHODS: We aimed to develop a more comprehensive set of measures for conducting multiyear priority comparisons of health issues in six agenda-setting arenas by identifying possible measures and data sources, selecting indicators based on feasibility and comparability of measures and gathering the data on selected indicators. We applied these measures to four communicable diseases-tuberculosis (TB), malaria, diarrhoeal diseases and dengue fever-given their differing impressionistic claims of priority. Where possible, we analysed the annual and/or 5-year trends from 2000 through 2022. RESULTS: We observed that TB and malaria received the highest priority for most periods in the past two decades in most arenas. However, a stagnation in development funding for these two conditions over the last 8-10 years may have fuelled the neglect claims. Despite having a higher disease burden, diarrhoea has been slipping in global priority with reduced spending, fewer clinical trials and stagnating publications. Dengue remains a low-priority condition but has witnessed a sharp rise in attention from the pharmaceutical industry. DISCUSSIONS: We expanded the arenas model by including a transnational arena (international representation) and additional measurements for various arenas. This analysis presents an approach to enable comparative trend analysis of the markers of agenda status over a multiyear period. More such analyses can bring much-desired objectivity in understanding how attention to global or national health issues changes over time in different arenas, potentiating a more equitable allocation of resources.

Shifting patterns and competing explanations for infectious disease priority in global health agenda setting arenas.

The highly decentralized nature of global health governance presents significant challenges to conceptualizing and systematically measuring the agenda status of diseases, injuries, risks and other conditions contributing to the collective disease burden. An arenas model for global health agenda setting was recently proposed to help address these challenges. Further developing the model, this study aims to advance more robust inquiry into how and why priority levels may vary among the array of stakeholder arenas in which global health agenda setting occurs. We analyse order and the magnitude of changes in priority for eight infectious diseases in four arenas (international aid, scientific research, pharmaceutical industry and news media) over a period of more than two decades in relation to five propositions from scholarship. The diseases vary on burden and prominence in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 for health and well-being, including four with specific indicators for monitoring and evaluation (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis) and four without (dengue, diarrhoeal diseases, measles, meningitis). The order of priority did not consistently align with the disease burden or international development goals in any arena. Additionally, using new methods to measure the scale of annual change in resource allocations that are indicative of priority reveals volatility at the disease level in all arenas amidst broader patterns of stability. Insights around long-term patterns of priority within and among arenas are integral to strengthening analyses that aim to identify pivotal causal mechanisms, to clarify how arenas interact, and to measure the effects they produce.