TY - JOUR
T1 - Priority setting using multiple criteria
T2 - Should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?
AU - Baltussen, R.
AU - Ten Asbroek, A. H.A.
AU - Koolman, X.
AU - Shrestha, N.
AU - Bhattarai, P.
AU - Niessen, L. W.
N1 - Funding Information:
SJM is grateful for postgraduate financial assistance provided by the States of Guernsey Education Council and the Dudley Stamp Memorial Fund of the Royal Geographical Society. AP also acknowledges support from the Dudley Stamp Memorial Fund. This work was funded in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship for RVM. GZ is funded by a Rhodes Trust School of Geography and the Environment and Environmental Change Institute studentship. TED has benefited from support and discussions with colleagues on the International Geographical Union’s Commission on Vulnerable Food Systems.
PY - 2007/5
Y1 - 2007/5
N2 - 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. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
AB - 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. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
KW - Multi-criteria decision analysis
KW - Nepal
KW - Priority setting
KW - Rational
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548452420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548452420&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/heapol/czm010
DO - 10.1093/heapol/czm010
M3 - Article
C2 - 17412742
AN - SCOPUS:34548452420
SN - 0268-1080
VL - 22
SP - 178
EP - 185
JO - Health policy and planning
JF - Health policy and planning
IS - 3
ER -