Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://hdl.handle.net/10495/44202
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorVélez, Claudia Marcela-
dc.contributor.authorKapiriri, Lydia-
dc.contributor.authorNouvet, Elysee-
dc.contributor.authorGoold, Susan-
dc.contributor.authorAguilera, Bernardo-
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Iestyn-
dc.contributor.authorDanis, Marion-
dc.contributor.authorEssue, Beverley M-
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-24T22:18:29Z-
dc.date.available2024-12-24T22:18:29Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationVélez CM, Kapiriri L, Nouvet E, Goold S, Aguilera B, Williams I, Danis M, Essue BM. Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO). Health Policy Open. 2022 Dec;3:100086. doi: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100086. Epub 2022 Nov 24. PMID: 36447637; PMCID: PMC9683850.spa
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10495/44202-
dc.description.abstractABSTRACT: Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting. Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison. Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS. Discussion and conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.spa
dc.format.extent8 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisherElsevierspa
dc.type.hasversioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionspa
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/*
dc.titleExamining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO)spa
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.publisher.groupGrupo Académico de Epidemiología Clínicaspa
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.hpopen.2022.100086-
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85spa
dc.rights.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa
dc.identifier.eissn2590-2296-
oaire.citationtitleHealth Policy OPENspa
oaire.citationstartpage1spa
oaire.citationendpage8spa
oaire.citationvolume3spa
dc.rights.creativecommonshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/spa
dc.publisher.placeÁmsterdam, Países Bajosspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1spa
dc.type.redcolhttps://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTspa
dc.type.localArtículo de investigaciónspa
dc.subject.decsCOVID-19-
dc.subject.decsPreparación para una Pandemia-
dc.subject.decsPandemic Preparedness-
dc.subject.decsPrioridades en Salud-
dc.subject.decsHealth Priorities-
dc.subject.decsOrganización Mundial de la Salud-
dc.subject.decsWorld Health Organization-
dc.subject.decsAsia Sudoriental-
dc.subject.decsAsia, Southeastern-
dc.description.researchgroupidCOL0007121spa
dc.subject.meshurihttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D000086382-
dc.subject.meshurihttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D000096763-
dc.subject.meshurihttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D006292-
dc.subject.meshurihttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D014944-
dc.subject.meshurihttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D001210-
dc.relation.ispartofjournalabbrevHealth Policy Openspa
Aparece en las colecciones: Artículos de Revista en Ciencias Médicas

Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
VelezClaudia_2022_Priority_Setting_Asia.pdfArtículo de investigación894.2 kBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir


Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons