Version 1
: Received: 10 August 2021 / Approved: 12 August 2021 / Online: 12 August 2021 (13:14:51 CEST)
How to cite:
Simangolwa, W.; Govender, K. Healthcare Priority-Setting in Essential Health Packages for Sexual Reproductive Health: Going Beyond the Commonly Prioritised Services. Preprints2021, 2021080275. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202108.0275.v1
Simangolwa, W.; Govender, K. Healthcare Priority-Setting in Essential Health Packages for Sexual Reproductive Health: Going Beyond the Commonly Prioritised Services. Preprints 2021, 2021080275. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202108.0275.v1
Simangolwa, W.; Govender, K. Healthcare Priority-Setting in Essential Health Packages for Sexual Reproductive Health: Going Beyond the Commonly Prioritised Services. Preprints2021, 2021080275. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202108.0275.v1
APA Style
Simangolwa, W., & Govender, K. (2021). Healthcare Priority-Setting in Essential Health Packages for Sexual Reproductive Health: Going Beyond the Commonly Prioritised Services. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202108.0275.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Simangolwa, W. and Kaymarlin Govender. 2021 "Healthcare Priority-Setting in Essential Health Packages for Sexual Reproductive Health: Going Beyond the Commonly Prioritised Services" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202108.0275.v1
Abstract
There is a systematic exclusion of gender-based violence, safe abortion, reproductive cancers, infertility services, comprehensive sexuality education, sexuality services, and STI’s other than HIV in essential health packages in LMICs. To accelerate progress on sexual reproductive health (SRH), the Guttmacher–Lancet Commission proposed the adoption of these interventions into an essential health package of SRH services that should be universally available. In this commentary, we use a healthcare priority-setting processes lens to review the importance of these services for universal health coverage. We isolate inherent challenges in social value judgments for terminal, process and content evidence for their healthcare priority-setting. We then advance promising emerging practical examples from low to middle-income countries on evidence-informed decision-making processes. We recommend capacity development through regional support, generating equity and efficiency evidence and strengthening political and publicly acceptable processes to institutionalise and operationalise evidence-informed decision-making.
Keywords
Healthcare Priority-setting; Health Technology Assessment; Essential Health Packages, Low to Middle Income Countries; Equity; Efficiency; Evidence-Informed Decision Making
Subject
Social Sciences, Decision Sciences
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
