Enhancing Priority-Setting Decision-Making Process Through Use of Intersectionality for Public Participation

Document Type : Letter to Editor


1 School of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

2 Department of Health, Aging and Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada


Dear Editor,

Baltussen et al emphasize in the conceptual framework of the evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefits package design paper that stakeholder participation is a core element of evidence-informed deliberative processes. The paper introduces seven stakeholder groups which includes patients, public, and carers. They highlight the challenges of stakeholder participation in decision-making processes and assert that such participation can lead to improved legitimacy of decision-making, transparency, and accountability. .... (Read more...)

  1. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design - part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;11(10):2319-2326. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.158
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Principles of Health Benefit Packages. Geneva: WHO; 2020.
  3. Alwan A, Majdzadeh R, Yamey G, et al. Country readiness and prerequisites for successful design and transition to implementation of essential packages of health services: experience from six countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(Suppl 1):e010720. doi:1136/bmjgh-2022-010720
  4. Baltussen R, Mwalim O, Blanchet K, et al. Decision-making processes for essential packages of health services: experience from six countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(Suppl 1):e010704. doi:1136/bmjgh-2022-010704
  5. Razavi SD, Kapiriri L, Wilson M, Abelson J. Applying priority-setting frameworks: A review of public and vulnerable populations’ participation in health-system priority setting. Health Policy. 2020;124(2):133142. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2019.12.005
  6. Arthur M, Saha R, Kapilarshami A. Systematic review of community participation and stakeholder engagement in priority setting for health services: assessing effectiveness and equity. J Glob Health. 2023;13:04034.
  7. Kapiriri L, Razavi DS. Salient stakeholders: Using the salience stakeholder model to assess stakeholders’ influence in healthcare priority setting. Health Policy Open. 2021;2:100048. doi:1016/j.hpopen.2021.100048
  8. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216-224. doi:1080/01944366908977225
  9. Glassman A, Giedion U, Smith PC. What's in, What's Out: Designing Benefits for Universal Health Coverage. Brookings Institution Press; 2017.
  10. Rahbari Bonab M, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F. Cross-country study of institutionalizing social participation in health policymaking: a realist analysis. Health Soc Care Community. 2023;2023:1927547. doi:1155/2023/1927547
  11. Tangcharoensathien V, Patcharanarumol W, Suwanwela W, et al. Defining the benefit package of Thailand universal coverage scheme: from pragmatism to sophistication. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(4):133-137. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.96
  12. Sajadi HS, Jama M, Majdzadeh R. Institutionalisation is a vital element for fairness of priority setting in the package design if the target is universal health coverage: comment on "Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefits package design – part II: a practical guide". Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;12:7544. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7544
  13. Hankivsky O. Intersectionality 101. Vancouver: Institute for Intersectionality Research & Policy, Simon Fraser University; 2014.
  14. Ghasemi E, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, et al. "Applying Intersectionality in designing and implementing health interventions: a scoping review". BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1407. doi:1186/s12889-021-11449-6