Was priority setting considered in COVID-19 response planning? A global comparative analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world. Methods: We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization. Results: The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%. Conclusion: The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.

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.

Priority setting in an acute care hospital in Argentina: a qualitative case study / Distribución prioritaria en un hospital de cuidados intensivos en Argentina: estudio cualitativo de un caso / Distribuição prioritária em um hospital de cuidados intensivos na Argentina: estudo qualitativo de um caso

Purpose: To describe and evaluate priority setting in an Acute Care hospital in Argentina, using Accountability for Reasonableness, an ethical framework for fair priority setting. Methods: Case Study involving key informant interviews and document review. Thirty respondents were identified using a snowball sampling strategy. A modified thematic approach was used in analyzing the data. Results: Priorities are primarily determined at the Department of Health. The committee which is supposed to set priorities within the hospital was thought not to have much influence. Decisions were based on government policies and objectives, personal relationships, economic, political, historical and arbitrary reasons. Decisions at the DOH were publicized through internet; however, apart from the tenders and a general budget, details of hospital decisions were not publicized. CATA provided an accessible but ineffective forum for appeals. There were no clear mechanisms for appeals and leadership to ensure adherence to a fair process. Conclusions: In spite of their efforts to ensure fairness, Priority setting in the study hospital did not meet all the four conditions of a fair process. Policy discussions on improving legitimacy and fairness provided an opportunity for improving fairness in the hospital and Accountability for Reasonableness might be a useful framework for analysis and for identifying and improving strategies.

Propósito: Describir y evaluar el establecimiento de prioridades en un hospital de cuidados intensivos en Argentina, empleando la Administración Razonable como marco ético para una justa asignación. Métodos: Estudio de un Caso que incluía entrevistas a un informante y revisión de documentos. Se identificó a treinta participantes empleando la estrategia de muestras tipo "bola de nieve". Al analizar los datos, se empleó un enfoque temático modificado. Resultados: Las prioridades se determinan principalmente en el Departamento de Salud. El comité que, se supone, debe establecer las prioridades dentro del hospital no tiene mayor influencia. Las decisiones se basan en políticas y objetivos gubernamentales, relaciones personales, razones económicas, políticas, históricas e, incluso, arbitrarias. Las decisiones del Departamento de Salud se publicitan a través de Internet; sin embargo, fuera de las propuestas y del presupuesto general, no se publicitan las decisiones del hospital. CATA proporciona un foro accesible pero ineficaz para apelar. No existen mecanismos claros para apelar ni para un liderazgo que asegure un proceso justo. Conclusiones: A pesar de los esfuerzos por asegurar la equidad, el establecimiento de prioridades del hospital no cumple las cuatro condiciones de un proceso justo. Las discusiones acerca de políticas de mejoramiento, legitimidad y equidad dan oportunidad para mejorar la equidad en el hospital, y el marco ético "Administración Razonable" podría constituir un marco útil para el análisis así como para identificar y mejorar las estrategias.

Propósito: Descrever e avaliar o estabelecimento de prioridades em um hospital de cuidados intensivos na Argentina, empregando a Administração Razoável como marco ético para uma justa destinação de recursos. Métodos: Estudo de um caso que incluía entrevistas a um informante e revisão de documentos. Foram identificados trinta participantes empregando a estratégia de amostras tipo bola de neve. Ao analisar os dados, se empregou um enfoque temático modificado. Resultados: As prioridades são determinadas principalmente no Departamento de Saúde. O comitê que, se supõe, deve estabelecer as prioridades dentro do hospital não tem maior influência. As decisões se baseiam em políticas e objetivos governamentais, relações pessoais, razões econômicas, políticas, históricas e, inclusive, arbitrárias. As decisões do Departamento de Saúde são divulgadas por meio da Internet; no entanto, além das propostas e do orçamento geral, não se divulgam as decisões do hospital. CATA proporciona uma instância acessível, porém ineficaz para apelar. Não existem mecanismos claros para apelar nem para uma liderança que assegure um processo justo. Conclusões: Apesar dos esforços para assegurar a equidade, o estabelecimento de prioridades do hospital não cumpre as quatro condições de um processo justo. As discussões sobre políticas de melhoria, legitimidade e equidade dão oportunidade para melhorar a equidade no hospital e no marco ético "Administração Razoável" poderia constituir um marco útil para a análise assim como para identificar e melhorar as estratégias.

Hospital priority setting in a mixed public/private health system: a case study of a Chilean hospital / Establecimiento de prioridades en un sistema de salud mixto público/privado: estudio de caso en un hospital chileno / Estabelecimento de prioridades em um sistema de saúde misto público/privado: estudo de caso em hospital chileno

The purpose of this study was to describe, using qualitative case study methods, and evaluate, using the ethical framework 'accountability for reasonableness', priority setting in a hospital in Chile. In policy making contexts that have historically been dominated by central authority, especially where there are limited resources, fair priority setting processes can empower people, foster social learning, improve the quality of the decisions, enhance compliance with policy decisions, and increase public confidence in the hospital.

El propósito de este estudio fue describir, a través del uso de métodos cualitativos en un estudio de caso, y evaluar, siguiendo la estructura ética de "Administración Razonable", el proceso de priorización en salud en un hospital de Chile. En el contexto de las políticas públicas ha dominado históricamente la centralización de la autoridad, especialmente cuando los recursos son limitados. Un proceso justo de priorización en salud puede empoderar a las personas, mejorar y aumentar el proceso de aprendizaje social, mejorar la calidad de las decisiones, aumentar el grado de adherencia y satisfacción de las políticas desarrolladas y aumentar la confianza pública en el hospital.

O propósito deste estudo foi descrever, por métodos qualitativos em um estudo de caso, e avaliar, seguindo a estrutura ética de "administração razoável", o processo de priorização em saúde em um hospital chileno. No contexto das políticas públicas onde tem dominado historicamente a centralização da autoridade, especialmente quando os recursos são limitados, um processo justo de priorização em saúde pode empoderar as pessoas, melhorar e aumentar o processo de aprendizagem social, melhorar a qualidade das decisões, aumentar o grau de aderência e satisfação das políticas desenvolvidas e a confiança pública no hospital.