Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda.
Stakeholder participation
Uganda
low-income countries (LICs)
priority setting
Journal
Health policy and planning
ISSN: 1460-2237
Titre abrégé: Health Policy Plan
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8610614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2019
01 Jun 2019
Historique:
accepted:
17
05
2019
pubmed:
11
6
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
entrez:
11
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31180489
pii: 5513294
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz049
pmc: PMC6736199
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
358-369Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Health Policy. 1995 Apr-Jun;32(1-3):215-43
pubmed: 10156640
Med Care Res Rev. 1999;56 Suppl 1:113-40
pubmed: 10354680
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2000 Oct-Dec;15(4):273-89
pubmed: 11246898
Health Policy. 2002 Nov;62(2):173-94
pubmed: 12354411
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):222-9
pubmed: 12425781
Health Policy Plan. 2003 Jun;18(2):205-13
pubmed: 12740325
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-51
pubmed: 12765705
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(2):321-30
pubmed: 14604618
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004 Jan 8;2(1):1
pubmed: 14711374
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004 Apr 22;2(1):3
pubmed: 15104792
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Mar;82(3):172-9
pubmed: 15112005
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Sep 08;4(1):25
pubmed: 15355544
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Aug 21;4:14
pubmed: 16923181
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Oct 06;6:127
pubmed: 17026761
Health Policy. 2007 Jun;82(1):78-94
pubmed: 17034898
Health Care Anal. 2007 Sep;15(3):159-67
pubmed: 17922194
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 1;179(1):15-8
pubmed: 18591516
Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-28
pubmed: 19261347
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Mar 05;9:43
pubmed: 19265518
Health Policy. 2011 Mar;99(3):234-43
pubmed: 20888061
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 01;10:322
pubmed: 21122123
Glob Health Action. 2011;4:null
pubmed: 22072991
Br J Nurs. 2013 Apr 11-24;22(7):372-6
pubmed: 23588012
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jul 12;13:273
pubmed: 23849730
PLoS Med. 2013 Aug;10(8):e1001495
pubmed: 23940462
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Feb;102:190-200
pubmed: 24565157
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Jun;30(5):555-65
pubmed: 24846947
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Dec;122:130-9
pubmed: 25441325
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Nov 05;8:571
pubmed: 26542357
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Feb 2;17(1):103
pubmed: 28148251
Health Policy. 2017 Jun;121(6):683-690
pubmed: 28433324
Health Policy. 2017 Sep;121(9):937-946
pubmed: 28734682
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Nov 1;32(suppl_3):iii59-iii66
pubmed: 29149317
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993 Winter;18(4):881-904
pubmed: 8120350