Skip to main content

Table 1 Parameters for evaluating Priority setting with corresponding means of verification and indicators

From: International validation of quality indicators for evaluating priority setting in low income countries: process and key lessons

  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
  1. Source: (Kapiriri & Martin, [20])