Priority setting using multiple criteria: Should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal?

Health Policy and Planning

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 178-185

  Baltussen, R ^a,b   Ten Asbroek, A H A ^c   Koolman, X ^b   Shrestha, N ^b   Bhattarai, P ^d,e   Niessen, L W ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY   (Nepal)

^e Nepal Institute of Health Science   (Nepal)

Author keywords

Multi criteria decision analysis; Nepal; Priority setting; Rational

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; NEPAL; POVERTY; TUBERCULOSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INFANT; LUNG DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPAL;

EID: 34548452420     PISSN: 02681080     EISSN: 14602237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czm010     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Baltussen R, Niessen L. 2006. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 4: 14.
2. Baltussen R, Stolk E, Chisholm D, Aikins M. 2006. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Economics 15: 689-96.
3. Evans DB, Lim SS, Adam T, Tan-Torres Edejer T and the WHO-CHOICE MDG Team. 2005a. Evaluation of current strategies and future priorities for improving health in developing countries. British Medical Journal 331: 1457-61.
4. Evans DB, Lim SS, Adam T, Tan-Torres Edejer T and the WHO-CHOICE MDG Team. 2005b. Methods to assess the costs and health effects of interventions for improving health in developing countries. British Medical Journal 331: 1137-40.
5. Global Fund. 2005. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Online at: [http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/], accessed 24 June 2005.
6. Ham C. 1997. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 42: 49-66.
7. Hirschberg S, Dones R, Heck T et al. 2004. Sustainability of electricity supply technologies under German conditions: a comparative evaluation. PSI Report No. 04-15. Villigen, Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institut.
8. James C, Carrin G, Savedoff W, Hanvoravongchai P. 2005. Clarifying efficiency-equity tradeoffs through explicit criteria, with a focus on developing countries. Health Care Analysis 13: 33-51.
9. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. 2004. Criteria for priority setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82: 172-9.
10. Kapiriri L, Norheim OF, Heggenhougen K. 2003. Using burden of disease information for health planning in developing countries: the experience from Uganda. Social Science and Medicine 56: 2433-41.
11. Kapiriri L, Arnesen T, Norheim OF. 2004. Is cost-effectiveness analysis preferred to severity of disease as the main guiding principle in priority setting in resource poor settings? The case of Uganda. Cost Efficiency and Resource Allocation 2: 1.
12. Kjaer T. 2005. A review of the discrete choice experiment - with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Economics Papers 2005: 1. Odense, Denmark: University of Southern Denmark.
13. Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service (LPNMS). 2004. MCDA - Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis techniques, using the Aspiration-Led Decision Support (ALDS) approach. Online at: [http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/infotech. htm], accessed 22 December 2005.
14. Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S et al. 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Ramadan A, (eds). Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making Amsterdam: Kluwer, pp. 15-54.
15. Martin DK, Singer PA. 2000. Priority setting and health technology assessment: beyond evidence based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Ham C, Coulter A, (eds). The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
16. McDaniel C, Gates R. 2005. Marketing research essentials. 5th edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
17. McIntyre D, Gilson L. 2000. Redressing disadvantage: promoting vertical equity within South Africa. Health Care Analysis 8: 235-58.
18. Mills A, Bennett S, Bloom G, González-Block MA, Pathmanathan I. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. 2004. Strengthening health systems: the role and promise of policy and systems research. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research.
19. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. 1997. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet 349: 1498-504.
20. Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. 2000. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics 9: 235-51.
21. National Economic Research Associates. 2000. Multi-criteria analysis manual. Online at: [http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1142253], accessed 27 February 2007.
22. Nelson EA, Olukoya A, Scherpbier RW. 2004. Towards an integrated approach to lung health in adolescents in developing countries. Annals of Tropical Paediatrics 24: 117-31.
23. Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2: 1.
24. Samir KC, Baltussen R, Shrestha N, Niessen L. 2005. Cost-effectiveness of PAL in Nepal, a modelling approach. iMTA working paper 6. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment.
25. Scherpbier RW, Hanson C, Raviglione M. 1998. Adult Lung Health Initiative: Basis for the development of algorithms for assessment, classification and treatment of respiratory illness in school-age children, youths and adults in developing countries. Document WHO/TB/98.257. Geneva: World Health Organization.
26. Segal L, Chen Y. 2001. Priority setting models for health. CHPE Working paper 119. Clayton, Australia: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Health Economics Unit, Monash University.
27. Shrestha N, Baltussen R, Samir KC, Niessen L. 2005. Costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness of respiratory guidelines in Nepal: a randomized controlled clinical trail. iMTA working paper 8. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment.
28. Sloane NJA. 2005. A library of orthogonal arrays. Online at: [http://www.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/], accessed 28 April 2005.
29. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. 2004. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 22: 1097-107.
30. ten Asbroek AH, Delnoij DM, Niessen LW et al. 2005. Implementing global knowledge in local practice: a WHO lung health initiative in Nepal. Health Policy and Planning 20: 290-301.
31. Tsuchiya A. 1999. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Social Science and Medicine 48: 267-76.
32. United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/2, United Nations, New York, 18 September 2000.
33. WHO. 2002. World Health Report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization.
34. WHO. 2004. Practical approach to lung health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Online at: [http://www.who.int/tb/dots/pal/en/].
35. WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.2001. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
36. Wiseman V. 2005. Comparing the preferences of health professionals and members of the public for setting health care priorities: experiences from Australia. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4: 129-37.
37. Wikler D (ed.). 2004. Fairness and goodness in health. Geneva: World Health Organization.