Table 5 Improving the priority setting process
Improving the process | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % | Uptake of economic evaluation | DHS (n) % | ACCHS (n) % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Better data and evidence | (21) 81% | (15) 63% | Up-skilling of staff | (15) 58% | (12) 50 |
Longer term view | (14) 54% | (15) 63% | Better data from studies | (14) 54% | (10) 42% |
Mechanism for shifting resources across programs required | (9) 35% | (4) 17% | Longer term view taken | (10) 38% | (9) 38% |
Systematic process of priority setting | (8) 31% | (9) 38% | Better communication strategy | (10) 38% | (8) 33% |
More explicit/transparent methods | (7) 27% | (8) 33% | More education on the credibility of economic evaluation | (10) 38% | (7) 29% |
Examining the margin when choosing to reduce or increase resources or activity | (2) 8% | 1 (4%) | Timely data from decision-makers | (10) 38% | (7) 29% |
Less political influence | (2) 8% | (3) 13% | Transparent economic models | (9) 35% | (6) 25% |