Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy

Document Type : Editorial

Author

Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Abstract

How can evidence from economic evaluations of the type the Disease Control Priorities project have synthesized be translated to better priority setting? This evidence provides insights into how investing in health, particularly though priority interventions and expanded access to health insurance and prepaid care, can not only save lives but also help alleviate poverty and provide financial risk protection. The article discusses some of the relevant factors needed to develop a Theory of Change for translating economic evidence to better priority setting within countries, and proposes some key strategic choices that are necessary to achieve the desired outputs and outcomes.

Highlights

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  • Disease Control Priorities Third Edition: Time to Put a Theory of Change Into Practice; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”

            Abstract | PDF

  • The Future of Disease Control Priorities; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”

            Abstract | PDF

  • On the Path to UHC – Global Evidence Must Go Local to Be Useful; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”

            Abstract | PDF

  • Reflections on Norheim (2018), Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy”

            Abstract | PDF

Author's Response to the Commentaries

  • Priority Setting on the Path to UHC: Time for Stronger Institutions and Stronger Health Systems: Response to Recent Commentaries

            Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Jamison DT, Mosley WH, Measham AR, Bobadilla JL. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Washington DC: The World Bank by Oxford University Press; 1993.
  2. World Bank. World Development Report 1993 : Investing in Health. Oxford: Published for the World Bank: Oxford University Press; 1993.
  3. Specter M. What money can buy. New Yorker; 2005.
  4. Horton R. Offline: Why we must learn to love economists. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):296. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30139-9
  5. Laxminarayan R, Mills AJ, Breman JG, et al. Advancement of global health: key messages from the Disease Control Priorities Project. Lancet. 2006;367(9517):1193-1208. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68440-7
  6. World Bank. Health Equity and Financial Protection Datasheet. Washngton DC: World Bank; 2012.
  7. Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
  8. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med. 2016;14:75. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4
  9. Anand S, Hanson K. Disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. J Health Econ. 1997;16(6):685-702.
  10. Rumbold B, Baker R, Ferraz O, et al. Universal health coverage, priority setting, and the human right to health. Lancet. 2017;390(10095):712-714. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30931-5
  11. Goetghebeur M, Castro-Jaramillo H, Baltussen R, Daniels N. The art of priority setting. Lancet. 2017;389(10087):2368-2369. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31573-8
  12. Holm S. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;317(7164):1000-1002.
  13. Yamin AE. Beyond compassion: the central role of accountability in applying a human rights framework to health. Health Hum Rights. 2008;10(2):1-20.
  14. Potts H. Accountability and the right ot the highest attainable standard of health. University of Essex; 2008.
  15. Ottersen OP, Dasgupta J, Blouin C, et al. The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change. Lancet. 2014;383(9917):630-667. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62407-1
  16. World Health Organization. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
  17. DCP3. Disease Control Priorities 3rd Edition. 2018. http://dcp-3.org (accessed January 15 2018).
  18. Jamison DT, Alwan A, Mock CN, et al. Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition. Lancet. 2018;391(10125):1108-1120. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32906-9
  19. DCP3. Country Engagement Overview. 2018. http://dcp-3.org/country-work/overview.
  20. Vogel I. Review of the use of theory of change in international development. London, UK: Department for International Development (DFID); 2012.
  21. Breuer E, Lee L, De Silva M, Lund C. Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:63. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6
  22. World Health Organization. World Health Report. Health systems financing: The path to universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
  23. IDSI. International Decision Support Initiative. Better Decisions. Better Health. https://www.idsihealth.org.
  24. WHO. WHO-CHOICE www.who.int/choice/en/. http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=evidence,cea&language=english.  Accessed January 2018.
  25. Goddard M, Hauck K, Smith PC. Priority setting in health - a political economy perspective. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1(Pt 1):79-90. doi:10.1017/s1744133105001040
  26. 26.Hauck K, Smith PC, Goddard M. The Economics of Priority Setting in Health Care. Washington DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank; 2003.
  27. Hauck K, Smith PC, Goddard M. The economics of priority setting for health: a literature review. Washington DC: World Bank; 2002.
  28. Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(6):462-467. doi:10.2471/blt.15.155721
  29. Chalkidou K, Marten R, Cutler D, et al. Health technology assessment in universal health coverage. Lancet. 2013;382(9910):e48-49. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62559-3
  30. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S. The greatest happiness of the greatest number? Policy actors' perspectives on the limits of economic evaluation as a tool for informing health care coverage decisions in Thailand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:197. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-197
  31. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S. A difficult balancing act: policy actors' perspectives on using economic evaluation to inform health-care coverage decisions under the Universal Health Insurance Coverage scheme in Thailand. Value Health. 2008;11 Suppl 1:S52-60. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00367.x
  32. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S, Mugford M. A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand: are the data good enough to be used by policy-makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(6):467-479.
  33. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What's in, what's out: designing benefits for universal health coverage. Washington DC: Center For Global Development; 2017.
  34. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Martin DK. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(4):766-773. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.011
  35. Kapiriri L, Arnesen T, Norheim OF. Is cost-effectiveness analysis preferred to severity of disease as the main guiding principle in priority setting in resource poor settings? The case of Uganda. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004;2(1):1. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-2-1
  36. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Heggenhougen K. Using burden of disease information for health planning in developing countries: the experience from Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(12):2433-2441.
  37. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Heggenhougen K. Public participation in health planning and priority setting at the district level in Uganda. Health Policy Plan. 2003;18(2):205-213.
  38. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. Whose priorities count? Comparison of community-identified health problems and Burden-of-Disease-assessed health priorities in a district in Uganda. Health Expect. 2002;5(1):55-62.
  39. Jain B, Hiligsmann M, Mathew JL, Evers SM. Analysis of a Small Group of Stakeholders Regarding Advancing Health Technology Assessment in India. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;3:167-171. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2014.04.006
  40. Kapiriri L, Bondy SJ. Health practitioners' and health planners' information needs and seeking behavior for decision making in Uganda. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75(10-11):714-721. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.10.003
  41. Walker DG, Teerawattananon Y, Anderson R, Richardson G. Generalisability, transferability, complexity and relevance. In: Shemilt I, Mugford MMarsh K, Donaldson C, eds. Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: Health Care, Social Welfare, Education and Criminal Justice. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. doi:10.1002/9781444320398.ch5
  42. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(3):172-179.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 March 2018
  • Revise Date: 17 June 2018
  • Accept Date: 17 June 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics