A follow up to an online questionnaire survey (in a kind of a sequential study design), qualitative assessment was made on the views of selected animal health experts on disease prioritization methods, resource allocation and use of decision-support tools. This was done through in-depth interviews with experts working for national or international organizations and sectors. A semi-structured question guide was formulated based on the information generated in the online questionnaire and a systematic content analysis of animal and human health manuals for disease prioritization and resource allocation. In-depth, one-on-one, online interviews on the process of disease prioritization, animal health decision-making, types of prioritization tools and aspects of improvements in the tools were conducted during March and April 2022 with 20 expert informants. Prioritization approaches reported by experts were either single criterion-based or multiple criteria-based. Experts appreciated the single-criterion-based approach (quantitative) for its objectivity in contrast to multicriteria prioritization approaches which were criticized for their subjectivity. Interviews with the experts revealed a perceived lack of quality and reliable data to inform disease prioritization, especially in smallholder livestock production systems. It was found that outputs of disease prioritization exercises do not generally directly influence resource allocation in animal health and highlighted the paucity of funding for animal health compared to other agricultural sectors. The experts considered that the available decision-support tools in animal health need improvement in terms of data visualization for interpretation, management decision making and advocacy. Further recommendations include minimizing subjective biases by increasing the availability and quality of data and improving the translation of disease prioritization outputs into actions and the resources to deliver those actions. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

UNASSIGNED: Maternal and newborn mortality rates are disproportionately high in crisis and conflict-affected countries. This study aims to understand factors influencing how MNH in humanitarian and fragile settings (HFS) is prioritized on the global health agenda during the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) era. This includes examining the policies and processes driving agenda setting and decision-making, as well as the perceptions of global actors. It further reflects on the role of global milestones, reports, convenings, and high-level champions, based on the premise that global prioritization leads to increased attention and resource allocation, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for mothers and newborns in crisis-affected areas.
UNASSIGNED: A qualitative study conducted from April 2022 to June 2023, employing a desk review and 23 semi-structured key informant interviews with global actors from donor agencies, implementing organizations, research institutes, United Nations agencies, professional associations, and coalitions, predominantly based in the Global North. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis and the research was guided by the Walt and Gibson Health Policy Triangle framework.
UNASSIGNED: Participants believe that global agenda-setting and investment decisions for MNH are primarily driven by UN agencies, donors, and implementing organizations at the global level. Although the Millennium Development Goal era successfully prioritized MNH, this focus has diminished during the SDGs, especially for HFS. Identified barriers include the complexity of reducing mortality rates in these contexts, limited political will, MNH investment fatigue, and a preference for quick wins. Fragmentation between humanitarian and development sectors and unclear mandates in protracted crises also hinder progress. Without enhanced global advocacy, accountability, and targeted investments in HFS, respondents deem global MNH targets unattainable.
UNASSIGNED: While waning donor interest and the siloing of HFS in global MNH decision-making pose challenges, targeted actions to address these barriers may include designating quotas for humanitarian actors in global MNH convenings, developing shared messages that convey common interests, and adopting an equity lens. Prioritizing MNH in HFS on the global agenda demands sustained commitment to ensure these settings are not an afterthought through dedicated advocacy and accountability, high-level political engagements, global milestones, and by leveraging opportunities to capture mainstream interest. Failing to shift global priorities will result in continued stagnation and worsening MNH outcomes across HFS.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders\' preferences in a transparent matter.
UNASSIGNED: We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services.
UNASSIGNED: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world.
UNASSIGNED: We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries\' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization.
UNASSIGNED: The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%.
UNASSIGNED: The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers\' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.

BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary approach of generating health system and policy-level evidence. Setting HPSR agendas is considered as an efficient strategy to map and identify policy and cost-effective research topics, but its practice in developing countries is limited. This paper aimed to conduct a collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia.
METHODS: The WHO\'s plan, implement, publish, and evaluate (PIPE) framework and the Delphi technique were used to conduct the priority-setting exercise. The PIPE model was used to lead the priority-setting process from planning to evaluation, while the Delphi technique was used to run the rating and ranking exercise with the aim of reaching a consensus. Two rounds of expert panel workshops supplemented with an online survey were used for the HPSR agenda setting, rating and ranking purposes. Groups were formed using the WHO health system building blocks as a base framework to identify and prioritize the HPSR topics.
RESULTS: Under 8 themes, 32 sub-themes and 182 HPSR topics were identified. The identified research themes include leadership management and governance, health policy, health information system, healthcare financing, human resource for health, medical products and supply, service delivery and cross-cutting issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority HPSR topics focussing on national health priority issues were identified. The identified topics were shared with policymakers and academic and research institutions. Evidence generation on the identified priority topics will guide future research endeavours and improve evidence-informed decision-making practice, health system performance and national health goals and targets.

UNASSIGNED: Previous studies of community priorities for autism research have been limited by low representation of autistic people and thus a bias toward the views of families and professionals. We aimed to determine the first community-led priorities for autism research in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).
UNASSIGNED: Autistic people were essential partners in the project, from inception and design through to methods and outputs. We gathered the views of the autistic and autism communities (including family, practitioners, and researchers) through focus groups (n = 55) and an online survey (n = 450). Almost 40% of the survey respondents indicated that they were autistic.
UNASSIGNED: The findings across the focus groups and survey highlighted the importance of research that centralizes the experiences and needs of autistic people, particularly of autistic New Zealanders, including culturally specific research for Māori and Pacific peoples. All five priority topics for autistic adults were also priorities for at least one other group: (1) Health, mental health, and well-being of autistic people (all groups); (2) Services across the life span (autistic adults, health care/disability, and education practitioners); (3) Needs of autistic people in Aotearoa NZ (autistic adults, whānau); (4) Perspectives from autistic people with a diverse range of support needs (autistic adults; education practitioners); (5) Quality of life of autistic people in Aotearoa NZ (autistic adults; health care/disability practitioners).
UNASSIGNED: We discuss the advantages of autistic involvement in research, and how these community priorities can inform future research and policy in NZ.
Why is this an important issue? There are no previous autism research priorities for Aotearoa New Zealand that have been determined by the autistic and autism communities. The population characteristics and social and cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) are unique. What was the purpose of this study? We wanted to find out what the autistic and autism communities think future autism research should focus on. What did the researchers do? Autistic people were essential partners in this project and contributed to the design, methods, and outputs. We carried out focus groups and an online survey of autistic people and members of the broader autism community (family, practitioners, and researchers) in NZ. In the focus groups, we asked 55 people what they thought future autism research in NZ should focus on. Three researchers (one autistic and two non-autistic) analyzed the focus group data. They read the written transcripts of the focus groups. Then, they met multiple times to talk about what they thought the ideas were and agree on the final ideas (themes). In the online survey, we asked 450 people to rate how important different autism research topics were to them. To analyze the survey data, two researchers looked at how important each autism research topic was for different community groups, including autistic adults, family, practitioners, and researchers. What were the results of the study? The results showed that the community thought future autism research should focus on the experiences of autistic people, particularly of autistic New Zealanders. Community members also thought that it was important that there is autism research that is specific to NZ, including culturally specific research for Māori and Pacific peoples. The five topics rated as most important by autistic adults were also priorities for at least one other group of people from the autism community (e.g., practitioners). Health, mental health, and well-being of autistic people was a priority topic for all groups. What do these findings add to what was already known? These findings tell us what autistic adults think is important for future autism research in NZ to focus on. The findings also show us the similarities and differences between what autistic adults think is important for future autism research, and what other people in the broader autism community think is important. What are the potential weaknesses in the study? The focus groups and online survey may not have been accessible to everyone who would like to take part. So we may have missed the opinion of some people. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future? We have determined what is important to autistic people and the broader autism community for future autism research. We can use this information to inform future autism research in NZ. Funding bodies can use this information to inform their decisions about funding for autism research. We hope that the way we included autistic adults in this project will also inspire other autism research in NZ, which will make autism research more appropriate, relevant, and ethical.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda has committed to \'ensuring that no one is left behind\'. Applying the right to health of non-citizens and international migrants is challenging in today\'s highly polarized political discourse on migration governance and integration. We explore the role of a priority setting approach to help support better, fairer and more transparent policy making in migration health. A priority setting approach must also incorporate migration health for more efficient and fair allocation of scarce resources. Explicitly recognizing the trade-offs as part of strategic planning, would circumvent ad hoc decision-making during crises, not well-suited for fairness. Discussions surrounding decisions about expanding services to migrants or subgroups of migrants, which services and to whom should be transparent and fair. We conclude that a priority setting approach can help better inform policy making by being more closely aligned with the practical challenges policy makers face towards the progressive realization of migration health.

In the pursuit of universal health coverage, countries are invariably confronted with questions about which services to pay with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Such priority-setting processes have major ramifications for the costs and benefits of care delivered. These processes are not just technical, but also highly political and organizational in nature and expressions of social values. This special issue focuses on building institutions for priority setting in health. These institutions serve a public purpose and are primarily concerned with conducting or using health technology assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. We first define the concept of institutions for priority setting in health and the methodological considerations of assessing and evaluating these institutions. Next, we present key common themes and summarize key messages across the articles, including lessons learned and future challenges in building these institutions.

BACKGROUND: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages.
METHODS: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process.
RESULTS: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

BACKGROUND: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan\'s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process.
METHODS: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation.
RESULTS: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.