Taking equity into consideration in economic evaluations of health interventions and other priority-setting tools

Priority setting in Health is a complex task that needs to be based on explicit criteria. While economic evaluations fulfil these requirements, the still remain further shortcomings in the current theory and practice of economic evaluation. One of them, which has attracted the interest of health economists and other professionals, refers to the equity dimension of health. A large amount of the literature reviewed in this paper addresses methodological solutions for addressing distributional concerns in economic evaluations. Yet, even though most authors agree with the general aim of reducing health inequalities, practical implementation issues that should inform policy are far from clear. This document will be followed by recommendations on further research [Abstr. p. 4] [Contents] 1. - Introduction. - 2. - Economic evaluations : 2.1 Different types. 2.2 Methodological and practical issues. 2.3 Shortcomings regarding the equity dimension. - 3. - Equity : 3.1 Rationale and definition. 3.2 Different types and practical implementation issues. 3.3 Measures of inequity. 3.4 Which principle(s) should prevail ? - 4. - Priority setting and equity concerns : 4.1 Equity weighted utility gains. 4.2 Cost-value analysis. 4.3 Frameworks for equitable allocation decisions. - 5 - Recommendations for future research. - 6 Conclusio

Improving mental and neurological health research in Latin America: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research evidence is essential to inform policies, interventions and programs, and yet research activities in mental and neurological (MN) health have been largely neglected, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Many challenges have been identified in the production and utilization of research evidence in Latin American countries, and more work is needed to overcome this disadvantageous situation. This study aims to address the situation by identifying initiatives that could improve MN health research activities and implementation of their results in the Latin American region.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty-four MN health actors from 13 Latin American countries were interviewed as part of an initiative by the Global Forum for Health Research and the World Health Organization to explore the status of MN health research in low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin-America.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A variety of recommendations to increase MN health research activities and implementation of their results emerged in the interviews. These included increasing skilled human resources in MN health interventions and research, fostering greater participation of stakeholders in the generation of research topics and projects, and engendering the interest of national and international institutions in important MN health issues and research methodologies. In the view of most participants, government agencies should strive to have research results inform the decision-making process in which they are involved. Thus these agencies would play a key role in facilitating and funding research. Participants also pointed to the importance of academic recognition and financial rewards in attracting professionals to primary and translational research in MN health. In addition, they suggested that institutions should create intramural resources to provide researchers with technical support in designing, carrying out and disseminating research, including resources to improve scientific writing skills.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Fulfillment of these recommendations would increase research production in MN health in Latin American countries. This, in turn, will raise the profile of these health problems, and consequently will underscore the need of continued high-quality and relevant research, thus fostering a virtuous cycle in the decision-making process to improve MN health care.</p

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency

Mental health research priorities in low- and middle-income countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest a paucity of and lack of prioritisation in mental health research from low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries. AIMS: To investigate research priorities in mental health among researchers and other stakeholders in LAMI countries. METHOD: We used a two-stage design that included identification, through literature searches and snowball technique, of researchers and stakeholders in 114 countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean; and a mail survey on priorities in research. RESULTS: The study identified broad agreement between researchers and stakeholders and across regions regarding research priorities. Epidemiology (burden and risk factors), health systems and social science ranked highest for type of research. Depression/anxiety, substance use disorders and psychoses; and children and adolescents, women, and people exposed to violence/trauma were prioritised among the disorders and population groups respectively. Important criteria for prioritising research were burden of disease, social justice, and availability of funds. Stakeholder groups differed in the importance they gave to the personal interest of researchers as a criterion for prioritising research. Researchers' and stakeholders' priorities were consistent with burden of disease estimates, however suicide was underprioritised compared with its burden. Researchers' and stakeholders' priorities were also largely congruent with the researchers' projects. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this first ever conducted survey of researchers and stakeholders regarding research priorities in mental health suggest that it should be possible to develop consensus at regional and international levels regarding the research agenda that is necessary to support health system objectives in LAMI countries