How did European countries set health priorities in response to the COVID-19 threat? A comparative document analysis of 24 pandemic preparedness plans across the EURO region.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. There are many tools and frameworks that have been designed to assist with the challenges of priority setting in health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which formal priority setting was evident in the pandemic plans produced by countries in the World Health Organisation's EURO region, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This compliments analysis of similar plans produced in other regions of the world. Twenty four pandemic preparedness plans were obtained that had been published between March and September 2020. For data extraction, we applied a framework for identifying and assessing the elements of good priority setting to each plan, before conducting comparative analysis across the sample. Our findings suggest that while some pre-requisites for effective priority setting were present in many cases - including political commitment and a recognition of the need for allocation decisions - many other hallmarks were less evident, such as explicit ethical criteria, decision making frameworks, and engagement processes. This study provides a unique insight into the role of priority setting in the European response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementing community-based health program in conflict settings: documenting experiences from the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of quality healthcare for women and children in conflict-affected settings remains a challenge that cannot be mitigated unless global health policymakers and implementers find an effective modality in these contexts. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Canadian Red Cross (CRC) used an integrated public health approach to pilot a program for delivering community-based health services in the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan in partnership with National Red Cross Societies in both countries. This study explored the feasibility, barriers, and strategies for context-specific agile programming in armed conflict affected settings. METHODS: A qualitative study design with key informant interviews and focus group discussions using purposive sampling was used for this study. Focus groups with community health workers/volunteers, community elders, men, women, and adolescents in the community and key informant interviews with program implementers were conducted in CAR and South Sudan. Data were analyzed by two independent researchers using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: In total, 15 focus groups and 16 key informant interviews were conducted, and a total of 169 people participated in the study. The feasibility of service delivery in armed conflict settings depends on well-defined and clear messaging, community inclusiveness and a localized plan for delivery of services. Security and knowledge gaps, including language barriers and gaps in literacy negatively impacted service delivery. Empowering women and adolescents and providing context-specific resources can mitigate some barriers. Community engagement, collaboration and negotiating safe passage, comprehensive delivery of services and continued training were key strategies identified for agile programming in conflict settings. CONCLUSION: Using an integrative community-based approach to health service delivery in CAR and South Sudan is feasible for humanitarian organizations operating in conflict-affected areas. For agile, and responsive implementation of health services in conflict-affected settings, decision-makers should focus on effectively engaging communities, bridge inequities through the engagement of vulnerable groups, collaborate and negotiate for safe passage for delivery of services, keep logistical and resource constraints in consideration and contextualize service delivery with the support of local actors.

How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature on systematic approaches to healthcare priority setting from various countries and different levels of decision making. This paper synthesizes the current literature in order to assess the extent to which program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), burden of disease & cost-effectiveness analysis (BOD/CEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and accountability for reasonableness (A4R), are reported to have been institutionalized and influenced policy making and practice. METHODS: We searched for English language publications on health care priority setting approaches (2000-2017). Our sources of literature included PubMed and Ovid databases (including Embase, Global Health, Medline, PsycINFO, EconLit). FINDINGS: Of the four approaches PBMA and A4R were commonly applied in high income countries while BOD/CEA was exclusively applied in low income countries. PBMA and BOD/CEA were most commonly reported to have influenced policy making. The explanations for limited adoption of an approach were related to its complexity, poor policy maker understanding and resource requirements. CONCLUSIONS: While systematic approaches have the potential to improve healthcare priority setting; most have not been adopted in routine policy making. The identified barriers call for sustained knowledge exchange between researchers and policy-makers and development of practical guidelines to ensure that these frameworks are more accessible, applicable and sustainable in informing policy making.