↓ Skip to main content

Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: Lessons learned, available options and suggested steps
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.056
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Hipgrave, Katarzyna Bolsewicz Alderman, Ian Anderson, Eliana Jimenez Soto

Abstract

Setting priority for health programming and budget allocation is an important issue, but there is little consensus on related processes. It is particularly relevant in low resource settings and at province- and district- or "meso-level", where contextual influences may be greater, information scarce and capacity lower. Although recent changes in disease epidemiology and health financing suggest even greater need to allocate resources effectively, the literature is relatively silent on evidence-based priority-setting in low and middle income countries (LMICs). We conducted a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature on health resource priority-setting in LMICs, focussing on meso-level and the evidence-based priority-setting processes (PSPs) piloted or suggested there. Our objective was to assess PSPs according to whether they have influenced resource allocation and impacted the outcome indicators prioritised. An exhaustive search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature published in the last decade yielded 57 background articles and 75 reports related to priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs. Although proponents of certain PSPs still advocate their use, other experts instead suggest broader elements to guide priority-setting. We conclude that currently no process can be confidently recommended for such settings. We also assessed the common reasons for failure at all levels of priority-setting and concluded further that local authorities should additionally consider contextual and systems limitations likely to prevent a satisfactory process and outcomes, particularly at meso-level. Recent literature proposes a list of related attributes and warning signs, and facilitated our preparation of a simple decision-tree or roadmap to help determine whether or not health systems issues should be improved in parallel to support for needed priority-setting; what elements of the PSP need improving; monitoring, and evaluation. Health priority-setting at meso-level in LMICs can involve common processes, but will often require additional attention to local health systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 22%
Researcher 32 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Other 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Social Sciences 37 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 30 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,259,363
of 25,405,598 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#3,493
of 11,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,074
of 320,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#35
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,405,598 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.