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”

Document Type : Commentary


1 Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand

2 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

4 School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

5 Center for Global Development, London, UK

6 Department of Economics and Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK


The Disease Control Priorities program (DCP) has pioneered the use of economic evidence in health. The theory of change (ToC) put forward by Norheim is a further welcome and necessary step towards translating DCP evidence into better priority setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also agree that institutionalising evidence for informed priority-setting processes is crucial. Unfortunately, there have been missed opportunities for the DCP program to challenge ill-judged global norms about opportunity costs and too little respect has been shown for the wider set of local circumstances that may enable, or disable, the productive application of the DCP evidence base. We suggest that the best way forward for the global health community is a new platform that integrates the many existing development initiatives and that is driven by countries’ asks.


Main Subjects

  1. Behague D, Tawiah C, Rosato M, Some T, Morrison J. Evidence-based policy-making: the implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(10):1539-1546. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.006
  2. Norheim OF. Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(9):771-777. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.60
  3. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Financing Global Health 2017: Funding Universal Health Coverage and the Unfinished HIV/AIDS Agenda. Seattle, WA: IHME; 2018.
  4. Verguet S, Olson ZD, Babigumira JB, et al. Health gains and financial risk protection afforded by public financing of selected interventions in Ethiopia: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e288-296. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(14)70346-8
  5. Verguet S, Murphy S, Anderson B, Johansson KA, Glass R, Rheingans R. Public finance of rotavirus vaccination in India and Ethiopia: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis. Vaccine. 2013;31(42):4902-4910. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.014
  6. Verguet S, Laxminarayan R, Jamison DT. Universal public finance of tuberculosis treatment in India: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2015;24(3):318-332. doi:10.1002/hec.3019
  7. Cookson R, Mirelman AJ, Griffin S, et al. Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns. Value Health. 2017;20(2):206-212. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027
  8. Chalkidou K, Li R, Culyer AJ, Glassman A, Hofman KJ, Teerawattananon Y. Health technology assessment: global advocacy and local realities: Comment on "Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;6(4):233-236. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.118
  9. Future and potential spending on health 2015-40: development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries. Lancet. 2017;389(10083):2005-2030. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30873-5
  10. Culyer A, Chalkidou K, Teerawattananon Y, Santatiwongchai B. Rival perspectives in health technology assessment and other economic evaluations for investing in global and national health. Who decides? Who pays? F1000Res. 2018;7:72. doi:10.12688/f1000research.13284.1
  11. Revill P, Walker S, Cambiano V, Phillips A, Sculpher MJ. Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies-The example of viral load informed differentiated care. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190283. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190283
  12. Manikandan S. Are we moving towards a new definition of essential medicines? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2015;6(3):123-125. doi:10.4103/0976-500x.162008
  13. Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(12):925-930. doi:10.2471/blt.15.164418
  14. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):733-744. doi:10.2165/00019053-200826090-00004
  15. Revill P, Ochalek J, Lomas J, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: guiding health care spending for population health improvement. A report by the Centre for Health Economics, University of York, for the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2015.
  16. Li R, Ruiz F, Culyer AJ, Chalkidou K, Hofman KJ. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research. F1000Res. 2017;6:231. doi:10.12688/f1000research.10966.1
  17. Wong JQ, Uy J, Haw NJL, et al. Priority Setting for Health Service Coverage Decisions Supported by Public Spending: Experience from the Philippines. Health Syst Reform. 2018;4(1):19-29. doi:10.1080/23288604.2017.1368432
  18. Lloyd R, Newbatt E, Jackson A. How to institutionalise evidence-informed priority setting. Rapid Literature Review for the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI). F1000Res. 2018. doi:10.7490/f1000research.1115416.1
  19. Tantivess S, Chalkidou K, Tritasavit N, Teerawattananon Y. Health Technology Assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: Experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE. F1000Res. 2017;6:2119. doi:10.12688/f1000research.13180.1
  20. Jamison DT, Summers LH, Alleyne G, et al. Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation. Lancet. 2013;382(9908):1898-1955. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62105-4
  21. World Health Organization (WHO). 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities: Main findings. WHO website. 2015. http://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/MD_HTA_oct2015_final_web2.pdf?ua=1. Published 2015.
Volume 8, Issue 2
February 2019
Pages 132-135
  • Receive Date: 07 October 2018
  • Revise Date: 17 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 17 November 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2019