Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 12;13(7):e069590. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069590.
Allocation of development aid for health is controversial and challenging. In recent years, several planning-software tools have promised to help decision-makers align resource allocation with their objectives, more clearly connect prioritisation to evidence and local circumstances, and increase transparency and comparability. We aim to explore these tools to provide insight into their fitness for purpose and suggest future directions to fulfil that promise.
We identified seven tools that met the inclusion criteria and developed an evaluation framework to compare them along two dimensions for assessing fitness for purpose: ability to produce analyses adhering to principles laid out in the International Decisions Support Initiative (iDSI) Reference Case for health economic evaluations; and resources required, including expertise and time. We extracted information from documentation and tool use and sent this information to tool developers for confirmation.
We categorise the tools into evidence-generating ones, evidence-syntheses ones and process support ones. Tools' fitness for purpose varies by the context, technical capacity and time limitation. The tools adhere to several reference case principles but often not to all of them. The source and underlying assumptions of prepopulated data are often opaque. Comparing vertical interventions across diseases and health system strengthening ones remains challenging.
The plethora of tools that aid priority setting in different ways is encouraging. Developers and users should place further emphasis on their ability to produce analyses that adhere to prioritisation principles. Opportunities for further development include using evidence-generating tools and multicriteria decision analysis approaches complimentarily. However, maintaining tool simplicity should also be considered to allow wider access.
卫生发展援助的分配颇具争议且富有挑战性。近年来,一些规划软件工具承诺帮助决策者使资源分配与其目标保持一致,更明确地将重点与证据和当地情况联系起来,并提高透明度和可比性。我们旨在探讨这些工具,以了解其是否符合目的,并为实现这一承诺提出未来的方向。
我们确定了符合纳入标准的七种工具,并制定了一个评估框架,从两个维度对它们进行比较,以评估其符合目的的程度:产生分析的能力,这些分析符合国际决策支持倡议(iDSI)卫生经济评估参考案例中规定的原则;以及所需的资源,包括专业知识和时间。我们从文件和工具使用中提取信息,并将这些信息发送给工具开发人员进行确认。
我们将工具分为生成证据的工具、综合证据的工具和提供流程支持的工具。工具符合目的的程度因背景、技术能力和时间限制而异。这些工具符合几个参考案例原则,但通常并非全部符合。预填充数据的来源和基本假设往往不透明。比较不同疾病的垂直干预和加强卫生系统的干预仍然具有挑战性。
以不同方式辅助确定优先次序的大量工具令人鼓舞。开发人员和用户应进一步强调其产生符合优先次序原则的分析的能力。进一步发展的机会包括互补使用生成证据的工具和多准则决策分析方法。然而,还应考虑保持工具的简单性,以允许更广泛的使用。