Table 1 Parameters for evaluating Priority setting with corresponding means of verification and indicators
Means of Verification (MOV) | Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) | |
|---|---|---|
Immediate Parameters of Successful Priority Setting | ||
Efficiency of the priority-setting process | Proportion of meeting time spent on PS, number of decisions made on time | Observations/min at meetings, annual budget documents, health system reports |
Allocation of resources according to priorities | Degree of alignment of resource allocation and agreed upon priorities, times budget is re-allocated from less prioritized to high prioritized areas, stakeholder satisfaction with the decisions | Annual budget reports, evaluation documents |
Stakeholder participation | Number SH participating, number of opportunities each SH gets to express opinion | Observations/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Use of clear priority setting process/tool/methods | Documented PS process and/or use of Ps framework | Observation/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Use of evidence | Number of times available data is resourced/number of studies commissioned/existing strategies to collect relevant data | Observations/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Use of explicit relevant priority setting criteria | Documented/articulated criteria | Observations/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Publicity of priorities and criteria | Number of times decisions and rationales appear in public documents | Media reports |
Functional mechanisms for appealing the decision | Number of decisions appealed, number of decisions revised | Observations/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Functional mechanisms for enforcement | Number of cases of failure to adhere to priority-setting process reported | Observations/min at meetings, media reports, special reports |
Reflection of public values | Number and type of members from the general public represented, how they are selected, number of times they get to express their opinion, proportion of decisions reflecting public values, documented strategy to enlist public values, number of studies commissioned to elicit public values | Observations/min at meetings, study reports, meeting minutes and strategic plans |
Increased public awareness of PS | % of public aware of existing PS process | Public awareness study |
Increased public confidence and acceptance of decisions | Number of complaints from the public | Reports, minutes from meetings, media reports |
Delayed Parameters of Successful Priority Setting | ||
Increased stakeholder understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the PS process | Number of SH attending meetings, number of complaints from SH, % SH that can articulate the concepts used in PS and appreciate the need for PS | Observations/min at meetings, special reports, SH satisfaction survey, media reports, stakeholder interviews, evaluation reports |
Decreased dissentions | Number of complaints from SH | Meeting minutes, media reports |
Decreased resource wastage/misallocation | Proportion of budget unused | Budget documents, evaluation reports |
Improved internal accountability/reduced corruption | Number of publicized resource allocation decisions | Evaluation reports, stakeholder interviews, media reports |
Strengthening of the PS institution | Indicators relating to increased efficiency, use of data, quality of decisions and appropriate resource allocation, % stakeholders with the capacity to set priorities | Training reports, evaluation reports, budget documents |
Impact on institutional goals and objectives | % of institutional objectives met that are attributed to the priority setting process | Evaluation reports, special studies |
Impact on health policy and practice | Changes in health policy to reflect identified priorities | Policy documents |
Achievement of HS goals | % reduction in DALYs, % reduction of the gap between the lower and upper quintiles, % of poor populations spending more than 50% of their income on health care, % users who report satisfaction with the healthcare system | National budget allocation documents, human resources survey reports, Interviews with stakeholders |
Improved financial and political accountability | Number of publicized financial resource allocation decisions, number of corruption instances reported, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the process | Reports, media reports, interviews with stakeholders |
Increased investment in the health sector and strengthening of the health care system | Proportion increase in the health budget, proportion increase in the retention of health workers, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the health care system | National budget allocation documents, human resources survey reports, interviews with stakeholders, media reportNational budget allocation documents, human resources survey reports, interviews with stakeholders, media report |
Contextual Factors Political, Economic, Social and cultural | Relevant contextual factors that may impact priority setting | Follow up intermittent interviews with local stakeholders, systematic longitudinal observations, relevant reports, media |