Table 1.
Domain | Parameter | Short definition |
---|---|---|
Contextual factors | Conducive political, economic, social and cultural context | 1Relevant contextual factors that may impact priority-setting |
Prerequisites | Political will | Degree to which the politicians manifested the support to tackle the pandemic |
Resources | Availability of a budget in the COVID-19 plan, and clear description of resources available or required (including human resources, ICU beds and equipment, PPE and other resources) | |
Legitimate and credible institutions | Degree to which the priority-setting institutions can set priorities, public confidence in the institution | |
Incentives for compliance | Explicit description of material and financial incentives to comply with the pandemic plan | |
The priority-setting process | Planning for continuity of care across the health systems | 2Explicit mentions of the continuity of healthcare services during the pandemic |
Stakeholder participation | Description of stakeholders participating in the development and implementation of the COVID-19 plan | |
Use of clear priority-setting processes/tools/methods | Documented priority-setting process and/or use of priority-setting framework | |
Use of explicit relevant priority-setting criteria | Documented/articulated criteria for priority-setting in the COVID-19 plan | |
Use of evidence | Explicit mention of the use of evidence to understand the context, the epidemiological situation, or to identify and assess possible interventions to be implemented | |
Reflection of public values | Explicit mention that the public is represented or that public values have been considered for the development or implementation of the plan | |
Publicity of priorities and criteria | Evidence that the plan and criteria for priority-setting have been publicized and documents are openly accessible | |
Functional mechanisms for appealing the decision | Description of mechanisms for appealing decisions related to the COVID-19 plan, or evidence that the plan has been revised | |
Functional mechanisms for enforcement the decision | Description of mechanisms for enforcing decisions related to the COVID-19 plan | |
Efficiency of the priority-setting process | 3Proportion of meeting time spent on priority-setting; number of decisions made on time | |
Decreased dissensions | 3Number of complaints from stakeholders | |
Implementation | Allocation of resources according to priorities | Degree of alignment of resource allocation and agreed upon priorities |
Decreased resource wastage/misallocation | 3Proportion of budget unused, drug stock-outs | |
Improved internal accountability/reduced corruption | Description of mechanisms for improving the internal accountability or reduce corruption | |
Increased stakeholder understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority-setting process | 3Number of stakeholders attending meetings, number of complaints from stakeholders, % stakeholders that can articulate the concepts used in priority-setting and appreciate the need for priority-setting | |
Strengthening of the priority-setting institution | 3Indicators relating to increased efficiency, use of data, quality of decisions, and appropriate resource allocation, % stakeholders with the capacity to set priorities | |
Impact on institutional goals and objectives | 3% of institutional objectives met that are attributed to the priority-setting process | |
Outcome/impact | Impact on health policy and practice | Changes in health policy to reflect identified priorities and swiftness of the pandemic response |
Impact on population health | Description of the expected impact of the COVID-19 plan on the population health | |
Impact on reducing inequalities | Description of the expected impact of the COVID-19 plan on reducing inequalities | |
Fair financial contribution | Description of the expected impact of the COVID-19 plan on fair financial contributions | |
Increased public confidence in the health sector | Description of the expected impact of the COVID-19 plan for increasing public confidence in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic | |
-Responsive healthcare system | 3% reduction in DALYs, % reduction of the gap between the lower and upper quintiles, % of poor populations spending more than 50% of their income on healthcare, % users who report satisfaction with the healthcare system | |
Improved financial and political accountability | 3Number of publicized financial resource allocation decisions, number of corruption instances reported, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the process | |
Increased investment in the health sector and strengthening of the healthcare system | 3Proportion increase in the health budget, proportion increase in the retention of health workers, % of the public reporting satisfaction with the healthcare system |
DALYs disability-adjusted life-years, ICU intensive care unit
1This parameter was not assessed in the national COVID-19 plans, but the information about the political, economic, social and cultural context was obtained from different sources and provided in this study to identify similarities and differences among countries in the same region
2This parameter was added to the framework for the specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic
3This parameter was not possible to be assessed in the national COVID-19 plans