Table 3 Perceived degree of importance of the different parameters for successful priority setting
Very important | Average importance | Not important | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Respondents’ levels of operation (number of respondents) G = Global; N = National; D = District | G (17) | N (23) | D (13) | G (17) | N (23) | D (13) | G (17) | N (23) | D (13) |
Parameters related to the priority setting process | |||||||||
Increased Efficiency of the process | 14 | 21 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Use of an explicit framework | 8 | 23 | 13 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increased use of evidence | 15 | 23 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fairer PS processa (stakeholder involvement, Publicity, explicit relevant criteria, appeals, enforcement) | 12 | 22 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Availability of incentives for implementers to comply | 7 | 16 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
Increased public input and reflection of public values | 11 | 20 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increased stakeholder satisfaction | 9 | 22 | 13 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Increased stakeholder understanding of the PS process | 8 | 23 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Increased compliance with the process | 11 | 20 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Reduced disagreements | 2 | 21 | 12 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
Increased public awareness and knowledge of PS | 4 | 22 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Parameters related to the priority setting institute | |||||||||
Strong legitimate PS institutions with capacity and resources to set and implement priorities | 13 | 21 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Achievement of priority setting institutional objectives | 8 | 21 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Parameters related to the health system | |||||||||
Allocation of resources according to priorities | 13 | 23 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Reduced resource wastage | 11 | 22 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Improved internal accountability/reduced corruption | 7 | 21 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
Achievement of health system goals | 11 | 23 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Improved political and financial accountability | 9 | 23 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Increased Public confidence in the MOH and acceptance of decisions | 8 | 22 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Increased investment in the health sector and strengthening of the health care system | 6 | 20 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
Parameters related to the priority setting context | |||||||||
Favorable Political context and will | 17 | 23 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Favorable economic context | 17 | 23 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Favorable social- cultural context | 17 | 23 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |