Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):140-61.
doi: 10.1002/hec.3299.

Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks

Affiliations

Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks

Virginia Wiseman et al. Health Econ. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

Policy makers in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasingly looking to develop 'evidence-based' frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. This paper synthesises and appraises the literature on methodological frameworks--which incorporate economic evaluation evidence--for the purpose of setting healthcare priorities in LMICs. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Econlit and PubMed identified 3968 articles with a further 21 articles identified through manual searching. A total of 36 papers were eligible for inclusion. These covered a wide range of health interventions with only two studies including health systems strengthening interventions related to financing, governance and human resources. A little under half of the studies (39%) included multiple criteria for priority setting, most commonly equity, feasibility and disease severity. Most studies (91%) specified a measure of 'efficiency' defined as cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Ranking of health interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis and generalised cost-effectiveness were the most common frameworks for identifying priority health interventions. Approximately a third of studies discussed the affordability of priority interventions. Only one study identified priority areas for the release or redeployment of resources. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for local capacity to conduct evaluations (including economic analysis) and empowerment of local decision-makers to act on this evidence.

Keywords: developing countries; economic evaluation; low-income and lower-middle-income countries; priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Selection of studies flow chart. *Authors contacted to confirm that a full paper was not available. **Priority setting papers that do not focus directly on health. ***Information captured in other papers. PS, priority setting; CE, cost effectiveness

References

    1. Adam T, Lim SS, Mehta S, Bhutta ZA, Fogstad H, Mathai M, Zupan J, Darmstadt GL. 2005. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for maternal and neonatal health in developing countries. British Medical Journal 331: 1107. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bate A, Mitton C. 2006. Application of economic principles in healthcare priority setting. Expert Review in Pharamacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 6: 275–84. - PubMed
    1. Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. 2006. Towards a multi‐criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Economics 15: 689–96. - PubMed
    1. Chisholm D, Saxena S. 2012. Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat neuropsychiatric conditions in sub‐Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study. British Medical Journal 344: e609. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M. 2011. Using threshold values for cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained in healthcare decisions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27: 71–76. - PubMed

Publication types