"But I survived": A phenomenological study of the health and wellbeing of aging Black women in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada.

Studies that assess the association between race and health have focused intently on the cumulative impact of continuous exposure to racism over an extended period. While these studies have contributed significantly to the general understanding of the life experiences and health status of racialized people, few studies have explicitly bridged the experiences of aging with gender and the wide structural barriers and social factors that have shaped the lives of racialized older women. This study aimed to investigate the origins of health inequities to highlight factors that intersect to affect the health and wellbeing of older Black women across their life course. Descriptive phenomenology was used to describe older Black women's health and wellbeing, and factors that impact their health across their life course. Criteria-based sampling was used to recruit study participants (n = 27). To be eligible women needed to be 55 years or older, speak English, self-identify as a Black female, and live in the Greater Toronto Area. Data analysis was guided by phenomenology. Themes identified demonstrated that participants' health and wellbeing were influenced by gender bias, racism, abuse, and retirement later in life. Participants reported having poor mental health during childhood and adulthood due to anxiety and depression. Other chronic illnesses reported included hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. Qualitative methods provided details regarding events and exposures that illuminate pathways through which health inequities emerge across the life course.

Equity, justice, and social values in priority setting: a qualitative study of resource allocation criteria for global donor organizations working in low-income countries.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing acceptance of the importance of social values such as equity and fairness in health care priority setting (PS). However, equity is difficult to define: the term means different things to different people, and the ways it is understood in theory often may not align with how it is operationalized. There is limited literature on how development assistance partner organizations (DAP) conceptualize and operationalize equity in their health care prioritization decisions that affect low-income countries (LIC). This paper explores whether and how equity is a consideration in DAP priority setting processes. METHODS: This was a qualitative study involving 38 in-depth interviews with DAPs involved in health-system PS for LICs and a review of their respective webpages. RESULTS: While several PS criteria were identified, direct articulation of equity as an explicit criterion was lacking. However, the criterion was implied in some of the responses in terms of prioritizing vulnerable populations. Where mentioned, respondents discussed the difficulties of operationalizing equity as a PS criterion since vulnerability is associated with several varying and competing factors including gender, age, geography, and income. Some respondents also suggested that equity could be operationalized in terms of an organization not supporting the pre-existing inequities. Although several organizations' webpages identify addressing inequities as a guiding principle, there were variations in how they spoke about its operationalization. While intersectionalities in vulnerabilities complicate its operationalization, if organizations explicitly articulate their equity focus the other organizations who also have equity as a guiding principle may, instead of focusing on the same aspect, concentrate on other dimensions of vulnerability. That way, all organizations will contribute to achieving equity in all the relevant dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Since most development organizations support some form of equity, this paper highlights a need for an internationally recognized framework that recognizes the intersectionalities of vulnerability, for mainstreaming and operationalizing equity in DAP priority setting and resource allocation. Such a framework will support consistency in the conceptualization of and operationalization of equity in global health programs. There is a need for studies which to assess the degree to which equity is actually integrated in these programs.

A scoping review of strategies to support public health recovery in the transition to a "new normal" in the age of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health workforce has experienced re-deployment from core functions such as health promotion, disease prevention, and health protection, to preventing and tracking the spread of COVID-19. With continued pandemic deployment coupled with the exacerbation of existing health disparities due to the pandemic, public health systems need to re-start the delivery of core public health programming alongside COVID-19 activities. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify strategies that support the re-integration of core public health programming alongside ongoing pandemic or emergency response. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was used to guide this study. A comprehensive search was conducted using: a) online databases, b) grey literature, c) content experts to identify additional references, and d) searching reference lists of pertinent studies. All references were screened by two team members. References were included that met the following criteria: a) involved public health organizations (local, regional, national, and international); b) provided descriptions of strategies to support adaptation or delivery of routine public health measures alongside disaster response; and c) quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive designs. No restrictions were placed on language, publication status, publication date, or outcomes. Data on study characteristics, intervention/strategy, and key findings were independently extracted by two team members. Emergent themes were established through independent inductive analysis by two team members. RESULTS: Of 44,087 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review. Study designs of included studies varied: descriptive (n = 8); qualitative (n = 4); mixed-methods (n = 2); cross-sectional (n = 1); case report (n = 1); single-group pretest/post-test design (n = 1). Included studies were from North America (n = 10), Africa (n = 4), and Asia (n = 3) and addressed various public health disasters including natural disasters (n = 9), infectious disease epidemics (n = 5), armed conflict (n = 2) and hazardous material disasters (n = 1). Five emergent themes were identified on strategies to support the re-integration of core public health services: a) community engagement, b) community assessment, c) collaborative partnerships and coordination, d) workforce capacity development and allocation, and e) funding/resource enhancement. CONCLUSION: Emergent themes from this study can be used by public health organizations as a beginning understanding of strategies that can support the re-introduction of essential public health services and programs in COVID-19 recovery.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

BACKGROUND: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps. METHODS: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables. RESULTS: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes toward more legitimate decision making. A survey among members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) showed that EDPs can also be relevant for countries that have not (yet) established such an agency. Therefore, we explored to what extent low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) applied the steps and elements stipulated in the EDP framework and their need for guidance. METHODS: The survey among INAHTA members was slightly adapted to address LMIC context and sent to 416 experts identified through several HTA sources. The questions focused on contextual factors and the EDP steps (installation of an appraisal committee, selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, communication and appeal). Data collection took place between 21 May and 1 September 2019. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: We received sixty-six meaningful responses from experts in thirty-two LMIC. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development are overall not present or only present to some extent. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, as well as communication and appeal. CONCLUSIONS: EDPs have the potential to provide steps for improving HTA processes. The results of this study can serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation of EDP application in the responding LMIC. This could support the countries in improving their processes and enhancing legitimate decision making when using HTA.

Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential feasibility and utility of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EPDs) in low income country (LIC) contexts. EDPs are implemented in high and middle income countries and thought to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decisions informed by health technology assessment (HTA). Together these would ultimately improve the legitimacy of any decision making process. We argue-based on our previous work and in light of the priority setting literature-that EDPs are relevant and feasible within LICs. The extreme lack of resources necessitates making tough decisions which may mean depriving populations of potentially valuable health technologies. It is critical that the decisions and the decision making bodies are perceived as fair and legitimate by the people that are most affected by the decisions. EDPs are well aligned with the political infrastructure in some LICs, which encourages public participation in decision making. Furthermore, many countries are committed to evidence-informed decision making. However, the application of EDPs may be hampered by the limited availability of evidence of good quality, lack of interest in transparency and accountability (in some LICs), limited capacity to conduct HTA, as well as limited time and financial resources to invest in a deliberative process. While EDPs would potentially benefit many LICs, mitigating the identified potential barriers would strengthen their applicability. We believe that implementation studies in LICs, documenting the contextualized enablers and barriers will facilitate the development of context specific improvement strategies for EDPs.

Beyond cost-effectiveness, morbidity and mortality: a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV programming in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low income countries to maximize the benefits of the available resources. This necessitates identification of priorities that should be funded. Evaluating prioritization processes would enable decision makers to assess the effectiveness of their processes, thereby designing intervention strategies. To date most evaluations have focused on cost-benefit analyses, which overlooks additional critical impacts of priority setting decisions. Kapiriri & Martin (2010) developed and validated a comprehensive framework for evaluating PS in low income countries. The objective of this paper report findings from a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV in Uganda, using the framework; and to identify lessons of good practice and areas for improvement. METHODS: This was a qualitative study based on forty interviews with decision makers and policy document review. Data were analysed using INVIVO 10, and based on the parameters in Kapiriri et al's evaluation framework. RESULTS: We found that HIV enjoys political support, which contributes to the availability of resources, strong planning institutions, and participatory prioritization process based on some criteria. Some of the identified limitations included; undue donor and political influence, priorities not being publicized, and lack of mechanisms for appealing the decisions. HIV prioritization had both positive and negative impacts on the health system. CONCLUSIONS: The framework facilitated a more comprehensive evaluation of HIV priority setting. While there were successful areas, the process could be strengthened by minimizing undue influence of external actors, and support the legitimate institutions to set priorities and implement them. These should also institute mechanisms for publicizing the decisions, appeals and increased accountability. While this paper looked at HIV, the framework is flexible enough to be used in evaluating priority setting for other health programs within similar context.

Priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda: a qualitative study evaluating actual practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda. METHODS: Fifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin's conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH. RESULTS: There were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Stronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

The unfunded priorities: an evaluation of priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The double burden of infectious diseases coupled with noncommunicable diseases poses unique challenges for priority setting and for achieving equitable action to address the major causes of disease burden in health systems already impacted by limited resources. Noncommunicable disease control is an important global health and development priority. However, there are challenges for translating this global priority into local priorities and action. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of national, sub-national and global factors on priority setting for noncommunicable disease control in Uganda and examine the extent to which priority setting was successful. METHODS: A mixed methods design that used the Kapiriri & Martin framework for evaluating priority setting in low income countries. The evaluation period was 2005-2015. Data collection included a document review (policy documents (n = 19); meeting minutes (n = 28)), media analysis (n = 114) and stakeholder interviews (n = 9). Data were analysed according to the Kapiriri & Martin (2010) framework. RESULTS: Priority setting for noncommunicable diseases was not entirely fair nor successful. While there were explicit processes that incorporated relevant criteria, evidence and wide stakeholder involvement, these criteria were not used systematically or consistently in the contemplation of noncommunicable diseases. There were insufficient resources for noncommunicable diseases, despite being a priority area. There were weaknesses in the priority setting institutions, and insufficient mechanisms to ensure accountability for decision-making. Priority setting was influenced by the priorities of major stakeholders (i.e. development assistance partners) which were not always aligned with national priorities. There were major delays in the implementation of noncommunicable disease-related priorities and in many cases, a failure to implement. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation revealed the challenges that low income countries are grappling with in prioritizing noncommunicable diseases in the context of a double disease burden with limited resources. Strengthening local capacity for priority setting would help to support the development of sustainable and implementable noncommunicable disease-related priorities. Global support (i.e. aid) to low income countries for noncommunicable diseases must also catch up to align with NCDs as a global health priority.

The quest for a framework for sustainable and institutionalised priority-setting for health research in a low-resource setting: the case of Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority. METHODS: Synthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context. RESULTS: Based on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context. CONCLUSION: While it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

Evaluating health research priority-setting in low-income countries: a case study of health research priority-setting in Zambia.

Priority-setting (PS) for health research presents an opportunity for the relevant stakeholders to identify and create a list of priorities that reflects the country's knowledge needs. Zambia has conducted several health research prioritisation exercises that have never been evaluated. Evaluation would facilitate gleaning of lessons of good practices that can be shared as well as the identification of areas of improvement. This paper describes and evaluates health research PS in Zambia from the perspectives of key stakeholders using an internationally validated evaluation framework. METHODS: This was a qualitative study based on 28 in-depth interviews with stakeholders who had participated in the PS exercises. An interview guide was employed. Data were analysed using NVIVO 10. Emerging themes were, in turn, compared to the framework parameters. RESULTS: Respondents reported that, while the Zambian political, economic, social and cultural context was conducive, there was a lack of co-ordination of funding sources, partners and research priorities. Although participatory, the process lacked community involvement, dissemination strategies and appeals mechanisms. Limited funding hampered implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Research was largely driven by the research funders. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is apparent commitment to health research in Zambia, health research PS is limited by lack of funding, and consistently used explicit and fair processes. The designated national research organisation and the availability of tools that have been validated and pilot tested within Zambia provide an opportunity for focused capacity strengthening for systematic prioritisation, monitoring and evaluation. The utility of the evaluation framework in Zambia could indicate potential usefulness in similar low-income countries.

International validation of quality indicators for evaluating priority setting in low income countries: process and key lessons.

BACKGROUND: While there have been efforts to develop frameworks to guide healthcare priority setting; there has been limited focus on evaluation frameworks. Moreover, while the few frameworks identify quality indicators for successful priority setting, they do not provide the users with strategies to verify these indicators. Kapiriri and Martin (Health Care Anal 18:129-147, 2010) developed a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. This framework provides BOTH parameters for successful priority setting and proposes means of their verification. Before its use in real life contexts, this paper presents results from a validation process of the framework. METHODS: The framework validation involved 53 policy makers and priority setting researchers at the global, national and sub-national levels (in Uganda). They were requested to indicate the relative importance of the proposed parameters as well as the feasibility of obtaining the related information. We also pilot tested the proposed means of verification. RESULTS: Almost all the respondents evaluated all the parameters, including the contextual factors, as 'very important'. However, some respondents at the global level thought 'presence of incentives to comply', 'reduced disagreements', 'increased public understanding,' 'improved institutional accountability' and 'meeting the ministry of health objectives', which could be a reflection of their levels of decision making. All the proposed means of verification were assessed as feasible with the exception of meeting observations which would require an insider. These findings results were consistent with those obtained from the pilot testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are relevant to policy makers and researchers involved in priority setting in low and middle income countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few initiatives that has involved potential users of a framework (at the global and in a Low Income Country) in its validation. The favorable validation of all the parameters at the national and sub-national levels implies that the framework has potential usefulness at those levels, as is. The parameters that were disputed at the global level necessitate further discussion when using the framework at that level. The next step is to use the validated framework in evaluating actual priority setting at the different levels.

Health research priority setting in Zambia: a stock taking of approaches conducted from 1998 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in health research is an emerging field. In Zambia, like many other African countries, various priority setting activities have been undertaken with a view to identify research activities to which the available resources can be targeted while at the same time maximising the health impact for resource allocation to support evidence-based decision-making. The aim of this paper is to document the key elements of the various priority setting activities that have been conducted since 1998, identifying the key lessons and providing recommendations to improve the process. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the previous priority setting activities and processes in Zambia was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were reviewed in order to identify any research priority setting processes that have been undertaken in Zambia. We developed a framework, based on the priority setting literature, to guide our abstraction and synthesis of the literature. RESULT: The earliest record of priority setting was conducted in 1998. Various priority setting approaches have been implemented in Zambia; ranging from externally driven, once-off activities to locally (in country) initiated comprehensive processes. However, there has been no systematic national process for priority setting. These priority setting processes in Zambia were characterised by limited stakeholder buy-in of the resulting national research or programmatic research agenda. Most striking was the lack of linkages between the different initiatives. There seems to have been no conscious recognition and building on previous priority-setting experiences of previous initiatives. CONCLUSION: There were gaps in the priority setting processes, stakeholder engagement and application of a defined criterion. There is a need for a priority setting framework coupled with local capacity developed across a range of stakeholders.

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).

A comparative analysis of COVID-19 physical distancing policies in South Africa and Uganda.

COVID-19 responses internationally have depended on physical distancing policies to manage virus transmission, given the initial absence of treatments and limitations on vaccine availability. Different jurisdictions have different contexts affecting their responses such as past epidemic experience, ratings of epidemic preparedness, and income level. COVID-19 responses in African countries have not been well-studied. A qualitative multiple embedded case study design was used to examine the COVID-19 policies in South Africa and Uganda from January 2020 to November 2021. This study included a documentary review using government websites and reports, news articles, and peer-reviewed journal articles to obtain data on policy responses and contextual factors. Epidemiological data were collected from public sources. Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders were used to confirm findings and cover missing information. A comparative analysis was conducted to explore differences in implementation of different types of physical distancing policies and potential consequences of lifting or prolonging public health measures. South African and Ugandan policy responses included physical distancing measures such as lockdown, international travel bans, school closures, public transportation measures, and curfew, in addition to socioeconomic relief programs and vaccinations. Differences between jurisdiction policy responses existed in terms of overarching strategy, timing, and stringency. This study provided in-depth comparisons of COVID-19 policy responses and relevant contextual factors in South Africa and Uganda. The study showed how contextual factors such as population age, geographic distribution, and recent epidemic response experience can influence COVID-19 transmission and response. The study also showed differences in overall strategy, timing, and strictness of epidemic management policies in these jurisdictions. These findings suggest it may be important to have sustained, strict measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 and manage the course of a pandemic, which need to be further explored alongside other important social and economic pandemic outcomes.

Planning with a gender lens: A gender analysis of pandemic preparedness plans from eight countries in Africa.

Background: Health planning and priority setting with a gender lens can help to anticipate and mitigate vulnerabilities that women and girls may experience in health systems, which is especially relevant during health emergencies. This study examined how gender considerations were accounted for in COVID-19 pandemic response planning in a subset of countries in Africa. Methods: Multi-country document review of national pandemic response plans (published before July 2020 and as of March 2022) from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia, supplemented with secondary data on gender representation on planning committees. A gender analysis framework informed the study design and the Morgan et al. matrix guided data extraction and analysis. Results: All plans reflected implicit and explicit considerations of the impacts of the pandemic responses on women and girls. Through a gender lens, the implicit considerations focused on ensuring safety and protections (e.g., training, access to personal protective equipment) for community and facility-based health care workers and broad engagement of the community in risk communication. The explicit gender considerations, reflected in a minority of plans, focused on addressing gender-based violence and providing access to essential services (e.g., sexual and reproductive health care, psychosocial supports), products (e.g., menstrual hygiene products) and social protection measures. Women were underrepresented on the COVID-19 planning committees in all countries. Conclusions: The plans reflected varying national efforts to develop pandemic responses that anticipated and reflected unique vulnerabilities faced by women, though subsequent plans reflected further consideration of gender-relevant impacts compared to initial plans. Embedding a gender lens in emergency preparedness planning furthers equity and could support anticipation and timely mitigation of negative outcomes for women and girls who are often further marginalized during health emergencies.

A global comparative analysis of the criteria and equity considerations included in eighty-six national COVID-19 plans.

Systematic priority setting (PS), based on explicit criteria, is thought to improve the quality and consistency of the PS decisions. Among the PS criteria, there is increased focus on the importance of equity considerations and vulnerable populations. This paper discusses the PS criteria that were included in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans, with specific focus on equity and on the vulnerable populations considered. Secondary synthesis of data, from a global comparative study that examined the degree to which the COVID-19 plans included PS, was conducted. Only 32 % of the plans identified explicit criteria. Severity of the disease and/or disease burden were the commonly mentioned criteria. With regards to equity considerations and prioritizing vulnerable populations, 22 countries identified people with co-morbidities others mentioned children, women etc. Low social-economic status and internally displaced population were not identified in any of the reviewed national plans. The limited inclusion of explicit criteria and equity considerations highlight a need for policy makers, in all contexts, to consider instituting and equipping PS institutions who can engage diverse stakeholders in identifying the relevant PS criteria during the post pandemic period. While vulnerability will vary with the type of health emergency- awareness of this and having mechanisms for identifying and prioritizing the most vulnerable will support equitable pandemic responses.

Priority setting in times of crises: an analysis of priority setting for the COVID-19 response in the Western Pacific Region.

BACKGROUND: While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR). METHODS: We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans. A pre-specified tool guided data extraction and the analysis examined the use of quality parameters of priority setting, and equity considerations. RESULTS: Nine plans were included in this analysis, from the following countries: Papua New Guinea, Tonga, The Philippines, Fiji, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Taiwan. Most commonly the plans described strong political will to respond swiftly, resource needs, stakeholder engagement, and defined the roles of institutions that guided COVID-19 response decision-making. The initial plans did not reflect strong evidence of public engagement or considerations of equity informing the early responses to the pandemic. CONCLUSION: This study advances an understanding of how priority setting and equity considerations were integrated to support the development of the initial COVID-19 responses in nine countries in WPR and contributes to the literature on health system planning during emergencies. This baseline assessment reveals evidence of the common priority setting parameters that were deployed in the initial responses, the prioritized resources and equity considerations and reinforces the importance of strengthening health system capacity for priority setting to support future pandemic preparedness.

Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: A synthesis of findings from 70 countries.

Stakeholder participation is a key component of a fair and equitable priority-setting in health. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for fair and equitable priority setting, and hence, stakeholder participation. To date, there is limited literature on stakeholder participation in the development of the pandemic plans (including the priority setting plans) that were rapidly developed during the pandemic. Drawing on a global study of national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans, we present a secondary analysis of COVID-19 national plans from 70 countries from the six WHO regions, focusing on stakeholder participation. We found that most plans were prepared by the Ministry of Health and acknowledged WHO guidance, however less than half mentioned that additional stakeholders were involved. Few plans described a strategy for stakeholder participation and/or accounted for public participation in the plan preparation. However, diverse stakeholders (including multiple governmental, non-governmental, and international organizations) were proposed to participate in the implementation of the plans. Overall, there was a lack of transparency about who participated in decision-making and limited evidence of meaningful participation of the community, including marginalized groups. The critical relevance of stakeholder participation in priority setting requires that governments develop strategies for meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders during pandemics such as COVID-19, and in routine healthcare priority setting.