Health technology assessment for sexual reproductive health and rights benefits package design in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of evidence-informed deliberative processes.

Autor: Simangolwa WM; Health Economics and HIV/AIDs Research Division, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa., Mbonigaba J; College of Law and Management Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa., Govender K; Health Economics and HIV/AIDs Research Division, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.; College of Law and Management Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: PloS one [PLoS One] 2024 Jun 27; Vol. 19 (6), pp. e0306042. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 27 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306042
Abstrakt: Background: Health technology assessment uses a multidisciplinary approach to support health benefits package design towards universal health coverage. The evidence-informed deliberative process framework has been used alongside Health technology assessment to enhance stakeholder participation and deliberations in health benefits package design. Applying the evidence-informed deliberative framework for Health assessment could support the morally diverse sexual reproductive health and rights (SRHR) benefits package design process. However, evidence on participation and deliberations for stakeholders in health technology assessment for SRHR benefits package design has not been curated in sub-Saharan Africa. This study synthesises literature to fill this gap.
Methods: This scoping review applies the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews, and deductive analysis following the evidence-informed deliberative processes framework. The search strategy uses the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission-proposed comprehensive definition of SRHR and the World Health Organisation's universal health coverage compendium of SRHR interventions to generate search terms. Six databases and biographical hand searches were used to identify studies in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1994.
Results: A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Evidence for yearly public budgets and explicit SRHR health technology assessment processes was not found. In 12 of the studies reviewed, new advisory committees were set up specifically for health technology assessment for SRHR priority-setting and benefits package design. In all decision-making processes reviewed, the committee member roles, participation and deliberations processes, and stakeholder veto powers were not clearly defined. Patients, the public, and producers of health technology were often excluded in the health technology assessment for the SRHR benefits package design. Most health technology assessment processes identified at least one decision-making criterion but failed to use this in their selection and appraisal stages for SRHR benefits design. The identification, selection, and scoping stages in health technology assessment for SRHR were non-existent in most studies. In 11 of the 14 processes of the included studies, stakeholders were dissatisfied with the health policy recommendation from the appraisal process in health technology assessment. Perceived benefits for evidence-informed deliberative processes included increased stakeholder engagement and fairness in decision-making.
Conclusion: To support the integration of diverse social values in health technology assessment for fairer SRHR benefits package design, evidence from this review suggests the need to institutionalise health technology assessment, establish prioritisation decision criteria, involve all relevant stakeholders, and standardise the process and assessment methodological approaches.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2024 Simangolwa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje