[Advancing standards for the development of evidence-based health information for consumers: Needs and priorities among members of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine]. / Inhaltliche Weiterentwicklung von Standards zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Gesundheitsinformationen: Eine Bedarfserhebung und Priorisierung im EbM-Netzwerk.

BACKGROUND: The Good Practice Guidelines for health information, Good Health Information Austria and Guideline Evidence-based Health Information are established resources for developing evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions. The aim of this project was to capture challenges in applying these standards in practice, identify gaps and development needs and gain insights for their further development. METHODS: In December 2020, members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine were invited to share their experiences and needs in applying German standards for evidence-based health information through an online survey focussing on open questions (part 1: needs assessment). The feedback was analysed using qualitative content analysis and presented in a workshop at the EbM Congress 2021 with the goal of specifying the feedback from the needs assessment and discussing ideas for the further development of the standards (part 2: specification). In the final step, a second survey was conducted in February 2023 to prioritize the identified topics by the working group members (part 3: prioritization). The results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 41 participants, only 23% considered the standards to be sufficient, and only 55% found their application in the development of information to be easy or rather easy. The needs assessment and workshop (n=46) helped to identify various areas of action. With regard to the application of the standards, the following challenges were identified: lack of user orientation, content gaps, methods and risk communication. Gaps in the standards were identified regarding formats, content, and the connection to healthcare provision. For the advancement of the standards ideas for additional content, stakeholder involvement, and improvement of the usability of the standards were identified. In the prioritization survey, the topic areas, "presenting benefits and harms" and "content beyond treatments (in particular, diagnostics and prognosis)" were considered to be the most important (n=36). DISCUSSION: Among members of the working group for patient information and involvement of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine, a high demand has been identified for the further development of standards for creating evidence-based health information. In addition to content development, the integration of existing documents and tools should also be considered, including products issued by other institutions. The success of advancing the standards also depends on improving their applicability - for example through an attractive online platform. The results are limited by the sample which only included members of the EbM Network's patient information and participation working group and a limited response rate. CONCLUSIONS: The needs assessment showed that the currently established standards and recommendations for the development of evidence-based health information in the German-speaking regions represent important cornerstones but need to be expanded to answer more practice-oriented questions. The challenges and proposed solutions stated by the participants can help further develop the standards. The prioritization can be used to set priorities for the development of the standards, guide the order of possible work packages and allocate resources.

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION: Collaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia. METHODS: This study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization. RESULTS: Our findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations. CONCLUSIONS: Most institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting.

Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care services for older adults are characterised by increasing needs and scarce resources. Political strategies have led to the reorganisation of long-term care services, with an increased focus on "ageing in place" and efficient use of resources. There is currently limited research on the processes by which resource allocation decisions are made by service allocators of long-term care services for older adults. The aim of this study is to explore how three political principles for priority setting in long-term care, resource, severity and benefit, are expressed in service allocation to older adults. METHODS: This qualitative study uses data from semi-structured individual interviews, focus groups and observations of service allocators who assess needs and assign long-term care services to older adults in Norway. The data were supplemented with individual decision letters from the allocation office, granting or denying long-term care services. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The allocators drew on all three principles for priority setting when assessing older adults' long-term care needs and allocating services. We found that the three principles pushed in different directions in the allocation process. We identified six themes related to service allocators' expression of the principles: (1) lowest effective level of care as a criterion for service allocation (resource), (2) blanket allocation of low-cost care services (resource), (3) severity of medical and rehabilitation needs (severity), (4) severity of care needs (severity), (5) benefit of generous service allocation (benefit) and (6) benefit of avoiding services (benefit). CONCLUSIONS: The expressions of the three political principles for priority setting in long-term care allocation are in accordance with broader political trends and discourses regarding "ageing in place", active ageing, an investment ideology, and prioritising those who are "worse off". Increasing attention to the rehabilitation potential of older adults and expectations that they will take care of themselves increase the risk of not meeting frail older adults' care needs. Additionally, difficulties in defining the severity of older adults' complex needs lead to debates regarding "worse off" versus potentiality in future long-term care services allocation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Accounting for future populations in health research.

The research we fund today will improve the health of people who will live tomorrow. But future people will not all benefit equally: decisions we make about what research to prioritize will predictably affect when and how much different people benefit from research. Organizations that fund health research should thus fairly account for the health needs of future populations when setting priorities. To this end, some research funders aim to allocate research resources in accordance with disease burden, prioritizing illnesses that cause more morbidity and mortality. In this article, I defend research funders' practice of aligning research funding with disease burden but argue that funders should aim to align research funding with future-rather than present-disease burden. I suggest that research funders should allocate research funding in proportion to aggregated estimates of disease burden over the period when research could plausibly start to yield benefits until indefinitely into the future.

A situational and stakeholder analysis of health technology assessment in Zimbabwe.

OBJECTIVES: Systematic priority setting is necessary for achieving high-quality healthcare using limited resources in low- and middle-income countries. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool that can be used for systematic priority setting. The objective of this study was to conduct a stakeholder and situational analysis of HTA in Zimbabwe. METHODS: We identified and analyzed stakeholders using the International Decision Support Initiative checklist. The identified stakeholders were invited to an HTA workshop convened at the University of Zimbabwe. We used an existing HTA situational analysis questionnaire to ask for participants' views on the need, demand, and supply of HTA. A follow-up survey was done among representatives of stakeholder organizations that failed to attend the workshop. We reviewed two health policy documents relevant to the HTA. Qualitative data from the survey and document review were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight organizations were identified as stakeholders for HTA in Zimbabwe. A total of 41 respondents from these stakeholder organizations participated in the survey. Respondents highlighted that the HTA was needed for transparent decision making. The demand for HTA-related evidence was high except for the health economic and ethics dimensions, perhaps reflecting a lack of awareness. Ministry of Health was listed as a major supplier of HTA data. CONCLUSIONS: There is no formal HTA agency in the Zimbabwe healthcare system. Various institutions make decisions on prioritization, procurement, and coverage of health services. The activities undertaken by these organizations provide context for the institutionalization of HTA in Zimbabwe.

An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.

BACKGROUND: As the UK's main healthcare priority-setter, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has good reason to want to demonstrate that its decisions are morally justified. In doing so, it has tended to rely on the moral plausibility of its principle of cost-effectiveness and the assertion that it has adopted a fair procedure. But neither approach provides wholly satisfactory grounds for morally defending NICE's decisions. In this study we adopt a complementary approach, based on the proposition that a priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the coherence of its approach and that the reliability of any such claim is undermined by the presence of dissonance within its moral system. This study is the first to empirically assess the coherence of NICE's formal approach and in doing so to generate evidence-based conclusions about the extent to which this approach is morally justified. METHODS: The study is grounded in the theory, methods and standards of empirical bioethics. Twenty NICE policy documents were coded to identify and classify the normative commitments contained within NICE technology appraisal policy as of 31 December 2021. Coherence was systematically assessed by attempting to bring these commitments into narrow reflective equilibrium (NRE) and by identifying sources of dissonance. FINDINGS: Much of NICE policy rests on coherent values that provide a strong foundation for morally justified decision-making. However, NICE's formal approach also contains several instances of dissonance which undermine coherence and prevent NRE from being fully established. Dissonance arises primarily from four sources: i) NICE's specification of the principle of cost-effectiveness; ii) its approach to prioritising the needs of particular groups; iii) its conception of reasonableness in the context of uncertainty, and iv) its concern for innovation as an independent value. CONCLUSION: At the time of analysis, the level of coherence across NICE policy provides reason to question the extent to which its formal approach to technology appraisal is morally justified. Some thoughts are offered on why, given these findings, NICE has been able to maintain its legitimacy as a healthcare priority-setter and on what could be done to enhance coherence.

Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence-informed guidance on TISP processes for countries where health technology assessment (HTA) is in a nascent phase. We aimed to explore the range of topic identification, selection and prioritization (TISP) processes and practices for HTA in selected countries and identify aspects relevant to emerging HTA systems. METHODS: This mixed design study included a systematic literature review, an electronic survey, and individual interviews. We conducted a systematic literature review with criteria that were developed a priori to identify countries deemed to have a recently formalized HTA system. Based on the literature review, a twenty-three item online survey was shared with the identified countries, we completed follow-up interviews with ten participants who have experience with HTA. We analyzed documents, survey responses and interview transcripts thematically to identify lessons related to TISP processes and practices. RESULTS: The literature review identified 29 nine candidate countries as having a "potential" recently formalized HTA system. Twenty-one survey responses were analyzed and supplemented with ten individual interviews. We found variation in countries' approaches to TISP - particularly between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Results indicate that TISP is heavily driven by policy makers, expert involvement, and to a lesser extent, relevant stakeholders. The use of horizon-scanning and early warning systems is uncommon. Interviewee participants provided further insight to the survey data, reporting that political awareness and an institutional framework were important to support TISP. TISP can be optimized by stronger national regulations and legislative structures, in addition to education and advocacy about HTA among politicians and decision-makers. In some settings regional networks have been useful, particularly in the development of TISP guidelines and methodologies. Additionally, the technical capacity to conduct TISP, and access to relevant local data were factors limiting TISP in national settings. Increased network collaboration and capacity building were reported as future needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides current insights into a topic where there is limited published peer reviewed literature. TISP is an important first step of HTA, and topics should be selected and prioritized based on local need and relevance. The limited capacity for TISP in settings where HTA is emerging may be supported by local and international collaboration to increase capacity and knowledge. To succeed, both TISP and HTA need to be embedded within national health care priority setting and decision-making. More in-depth understanding of where countries are situtated in formalizing the TISP process may help others to overcome factors that facilitate or hinder progress.

Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). RESULTS: On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

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.

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

What are important areas where better technology would support women's health? Findings from a priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Women's health has historically lacked investment in research and development. Technologies that enhance women's health ('FemTech') could contribute to improving this. However, there has been little work to understand which priority unmet needs should be a focus for women's health technology development. The voices of clinicians and those who experience and utilise these technologies (including those used at home or encountered in clinical settings) are needed to ensure that device development aligns with need, without risking exacerbating or creating health inequities. METHOD: We undertook a priority setting partnership project exploring unmet needs in women's health and well-being where physical technologies or innovations could help. This comprised gathering feedback from: patients and clinicians using both qualitative surveys and discussions; collating and publishing these responses and asking for feedback; evidence checking unmet needs identified, and holding a partnership priority setting event to agree a top 10 and top 20 list of priorities. RESULTS: We generated a 'longlist' of 54 suggestions for areas where better kit, devices or equipment could support women's health. For three, we found evidence of existing technologies which mitigated against that need. We took the remaining 51 suggestions to a partnership priority setting meeting which brought together clinicians and service users. Through discussion as this group, we generated a list of the top 10 areas identified as priorities for technological development and improvement. These included better devices to manage examination, diagnosis and treatment of pelvic pain (including endometriosis), prolapse care, continence (treatment and prevention, related to pregnancy and beyond), menstruation, vaginal pain and vaginismus, point of care tests for common infections, and nipple care when breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: The top priorities suggest far-reaching areas of unmet need across women's life course and across multiple domains of health and well-being, and opportunities where innovation in the devices that people use themselves or encounter in health settings could potentially enhance health and healthcare experiences.

Health technology assessment (HTA) readiness in Uganda: stakeholder's perceptions on the potential application of HTA to support national universal health coverage efforts.

INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment (HTA) is an area that remains less implemented in low- and lower middle-income countries. The aim of the study is to understand the perceptions of stakeholders in Uganda toward HTA and its role in decision making, in order to inform its potential implementation in the country. METHODS: The study takes a cross-sectional mixed methods approach, utilizing an adapted version of the International Decision Support Initiative questionnaire with both semi-structured and open-ended questions. We interviewed thirty key informants from different stakeholder institutions in Uganda that support policy and decision making in the health sector. RESULTS: All participants perceived HTA as an important tool for decision making. Allocative efficiency was regarded as the most important use of HTA receiving the highest average score (8.8 out of 10), followed by quality of healthcare (7.8/10), transparency (7.6/10), budget control (7.5/10), and equity (6.5/10). There was concern that some of the uses of HTA may not be achieved in reality if there was political interference during the HTA process. The study participants identified development partners as the most likely potential users of HTA (66.7 percent of participants), followed by Ministry of Health (43.3 percent). CONCLUSION: Interviewed stakeholders in Uganda viewed the role of HTA positively, suggesting that there exists a promising environment for the establishment and operationalization of HTA as a tool for decision making within the health sector. However, sustainable development and application of HTA in Uganda will require adequate capacity both to undertake HTAs and to support their use and uptake.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment.

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Financial hardship associated with catastrophic out-of-pocket spending tied to primary care services in low- and lower-middle-income countries: findings from a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Financial risk protection (FRP) is a key component of universal health coverage (UHC): all individuals must be able to obtain the health services they need without experiencing financial hardship. In many low-income and lower-middle-income countries, however, the health system fails to provide sufficient protection against high out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on health services. In 2018, OOP health spending comprised approximately 40% of current health expenditures in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. METHODS: We model the household risk of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), conditional on having a given disease or condition-defined as OOP health spending that exceeds a threshold percentage (10, 25, or 40%) of annual income-for 29 health services across 13 disease categories (e.g., diarrheal diseases, cardiovascular diseases) in 34 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Health services were included in the analysis if delivered at the primary care level and part of the Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition "highest priority package." Data were compiled from several publicly available sources, including national health accounts, household surveys, and the published literature. A risk of CHE, conditional on having disease, was modeled as depending on usage, captured through utilization indicators; affordability, captured via the level of public financing and OOP health service unit costs; and income. RESULTS: Across all countries, diseases, and health services, the risk of CHE (conditional on having a disease) would be concentrated among poorer quintiles (6.8% risk in quintile 1 vs. 1.3% in quintile 5 using a 10% CHE threshold). The risk of CHE would be higher for a few disease areas, including cardiovascular disease and mental/behavioral disorders (7.8% and 9.8% using a 10% CHE threshold), while lower risks of CHE were observed for lower cost services. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient FRP stands as a major barrier to achieving UHC, and risk of CHE is a major problem for health systems in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Beyond its threat to the financial stability of households, CHE may also lead to worse health outcomes, especially among the poorest for whom both ill health and financial risk are most severe. Modeling the risk of CHE associated with specific disease areas and services can help policymakers set progressive health sector priorities. Decision-makers could explicitly include FRP as a criterion for consideration when assessing the health interventions for inclusion in national essential benefit packages.

Tracking global resources and capacity for health research: time to reassess strategies and investment decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic and more recently the Monkeypox outbreak emphasize the urgency and importance of improving the availability and equitable distribution of resources for health research across rich and poor countries. Discussions about the persistent imbalances in resource allocation for health research between rich and poor countries are not new, but little or no progress has been made in redressing these imbalances over the years. This is critical not only for emergency preparedness, but for the worlds' ability to improve population health in an equitable manner. Concerned with the lack of progress in this area, Member States of the World Health Organization requested the establishment of a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development, with the aim of consolidating, monitoring and analyzing relevant information on health research and development, with a view to informing the coordination and prioritization of new investments. In this commentary, we highlight some of the striking disparities from the Observatory's analysis over the 5 years since its establishment and reflect on what is needed to overturn stagnant progress.

Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES: Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children. METHODS: We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO. RESULTS: There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

Institutionalisation Is a Vital Element for Fairness of Priority Setting in the Package Design if the Target is Universal Health Coverage Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefits Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

The evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) guide provides a practical framework for fair priority setting of the health benefits package (HBP) that countries can reasonably use. The steps presented in the EDPs are applicable for prioritising health services in designing HBP and are consistent with practical experience in countries. However, institutionalisation must be considered an element of fairness in the priority-setting process if the aim is to reach broader goals of a health system, such as universal health coverage (UHC). Otherwise, the EDPs for priority setting might not be integrated into the formal health system or impactful, resulting in a waste of time and resources, which is unfair. Institutionalisation means formalising the desired change as an embedded and integrated system so that the change lasts over time. For the institutionalisation of EPDs, four stages are suggested, which are (1) establishing a supportive legal framework, (2) designating governance and institutional structure, (3) stipulating the EDPs processes and (4) individual and institutional capacity building.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. METHODS: To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. RESULTS: The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. CONCLUSIONS: The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.