Table 1. Parameters for Evaluating Priority Setting With Corresponding Means of Verification and Indicators .

Immediate Parameters of Successful Priority Setting	OVIs	MOV
Efficiency of the priority-setting process	Proportion of meeting time spent on priority setting, number of decisions made on time	Observations/minutes at meetings, annual budget documents, health system reports
Allocation of resources according to priorities	Degree of alignment of resource allocation and agreed upon priorities, times budget is re-allocated from less prioritized to high prioritized areas, stakeholder satisfaction with the decisions	Annual budget reports, evaluation documents
Stakeholder participation	Number stakeholder participating, number of opportunities each stakeholder gets to express opinion	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Use of clear priority setting process/tool/method	Documented priority setting process and/or use of priority setting framework	Observation/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Use of evidence	Number of times available data is resourced/number of studies commissioned/existing strategies to collect relevant data	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Use of explicit relevant priority setting criteria	Documented/articulated criteria	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Publicity of priorities and criteria	Number of times decisions and rationales appear in public documents	Media reports
Functional mechanisms for appealing the decisions	Number of decisions appealed, number of decisions revised	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Functional mechanisms for enforcement	Number of cases of failure to adhere to priority-setting process reported	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Fairer priority setting process a) relevance b) publicity c) revisions d) enforcement	Degree to which priority setting process aligns with 4 conditions of Accountability for reasonableness: relevance-involvement of relevant stakeholders and relevant criteria, publicity of decisions, mechanisms for revisions and enforcement of priority setting process	Observations/minutes at meetings, media reports, special reports
Reflection of public values	Number and type of members from the general public represented, how they are selected, number of times they get to express their opinion, proportion of decisions reflecting public values, documented strategy to enlist public values, number of studies commissioned to elicit public values	Observations/minutes at meetings, study reports, meeting minutes and strategic plans
Increased public awareness of priority setting	% of public aware of existing priority setting process	Public awareness study
Increased public confidence in and acceptance of decisions	Number of complaints from the public	Reports, minutes from meetings, media reports
Delayed Parameters of Successful priority setting
Increased stakeholder understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process	Number of stakeholder attending meetings, number of complaints from stakeholder, % stakeholder that can articulate the concepts used in priority setting and appreciate the need for priority setting	Observations/minutes at meetings, special reports, stakeholder satisfaction survey, media reports, stakeholder interviews, evaluation reports
Decreased dissentions	Number of complaints from stakeholder	Meeting minutes, media reports
Decreased resource wastage	Proportion of budget unused	Budget documents, evaluation reports
Improved internal accountability/reduced corruption	Number of publicized resource allocation decisions	Evaluation reports, stakeholder interviews, media reports
Strengthening of the priority setting institution	Indicators relating to increased efficiency, use of data, quality of decisions and appropriate resource allocation, % stakeholders with the capacity to set priorities	Training reports, evaluation reports, budget documents
Impact on institutional goals and objectives	% of institutional objectives met that are attributed to the priority setting process	Evaluation reports, special studies
Impact on health policy and practice	Changes in health policy to reflect identified priorities	Policy documents
Achievement of health system goals	% Reduction in DALYs, % reduction of the gap between the lower and upper quintiles, % of poor populations spending more than 50% of their income on health care, % users who report satisfaction with the health care system	National budget allocation documents, human resources survey reports, Interviews with stakeholders
Improved financial and political accountability	Number of publicized financial resource allocation decisions, number of corruption instances reported, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the process	Reports, media reports, interviews with stakeholders
Increased investment in the health sector and strengthening of the health care system	Proportion increase in the health budget, proportion increase in the retention of health workers, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the health care system

Abbreviations: OVIs, objectively verifiable indicators; MOV, means of verification; DALY, disability-adjusted life year.