Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?
until further notice
SourceHealth Policy and Planning, 22, 3, (2007), pp. 178-185
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Health Policy and Planning
SubjectEBP 3: Effective Primary Care and Public Health; N4i 3: Poverty-related infectious diseases; NCEBP 13: Infectious diseases and international health; NCEBP 7: Effective primary care and public health
OBJECTIVES: To identify and weigh the various criteria for priority setting, and to assess whether a recently evaluated lung health programme in Nepal should be considered a priority in that country. METHODS: Through a discrete choice experiment with 66 respondents in Nepal, the relative importance of several criteria for priority setting was determined. Subsequently, a set of interventions, including the lung health programme, was rank ordered on the basis of their overall performance on those criteria. RESULTS: Priority interventions are those that target severe diseases, many beneficiaries and people of middle-age, have large individual health benefits, lead to poverty reduction and are very cost-effective. Certain interventions in tuberculosis control rank highest. The lung health programme ranks 13th out of 34 interventions. CONCLUSION: This explorative analysis suggests that the lung health programme is among the priorities in Nepal when taking into account a range of relevant criteria for priority setting. The multi-criteria approach can be an important step forward to rational priority setting in developing countries.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.