Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods:The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results:We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion:MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, health technology assessment agencies (HTAs) presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values and thereby risk compromising the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose "evidence-informed deliberative processes" as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy. This framework integrates two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multicriteria decision analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values. The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. First, HTA agencies should take the responsibility of organizing stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phases, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria and to provide argumentation for how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal. The framework should not be considered a blueprint for HTA agencies but rather an aspirational goal-agencies can take incremental steps toward achieving this goal.

BackgroundMost sub-Saharan African countries struggle to make safe surgery accessible to rural populations due to a shortage of qualified surgeons and the unlikelihood of retaining them in district hospitals. In 2002, Zambia introduced a new cadre of non-physician clinicians (NPCs), medical licentiates (MLs), trained initially to the level of a higher diploma and from 2013 up to a BSc degree. MLs have advanced clinical skills, including training in elective and emergency surgery, designed as a sustainable response to the surgical needs of rural populations.MethodsThis qualitative study aimed to describe the role, contributions and challenges surgically active MLs have experienced. Based on 43 interviewees, it includes the perspective of MLs, their district hospital colleagues—medical officers (MOs), nurses and managers; and surgeon-supervisors and national stakeholders.ResultsIn Zambia, MLs play a crucial role in delivering surgical services at the district level, providing emergency surgery and often increasing the range of elective surgical cases that would otherwise not be available for rural dwellers. They work hand in hand with MOs, often giving them informal surgical training and reducing the need for hospitals to refer surgical cases. However, MLs often face professional recognition problems and tensions around relationships with MOs that impact their ability to utilise their surgical skills.ConclusionsThe paper provides new evidence concerning the benefits of ‘task shifting’ and identifies challenges that need to be addressed if MLs are to be a sustainable response to the surgical needs of rural populations in Zambia. Policy lessons for other countries in the region that also use NPCs to deliver essential surgery include the need for career paths and opportunities, professional recognition, and suitable employment options for this important cadre of healthcare professionals.

ObjectivePresenting the results of 5 years of implementing health facility-based maternal death audits in Rwanda, showing maternal death classification, identification of substandard (care) factors that have contributed to death, and conclusive recommendations for quality improvements in maternal and obstetric care.DesignNationwide facility-based retrospective cohort study.SettingsAll cases of maternal death audited by district hospital-based audit teams between January 2009 and December 2013 were reviewed. Maternal deaths that were not subjected to a local audit are not part of the cohort.Population987 audited cases of maternal death.Main outcome measuresCharacteristics of deceased women, timing of onset of complications, place of death, parity, gravida, antenatal clinic attendance, reported cause of death, service factors and individual factors identified by committees as having contributed to death, and recommendations made by audit teams.Results987 cases were audited, representing 93.1% of all maternal deaths reported through the national health management information system over the 5-year period. Almost 3 quarters of the deaths (71.6%) occurred at district hospitals. In 44.9% of these cases, death occurred in the post-partum period. Seventy per cent were due to direct causes, with post-partum haemorrhage as the leading cause (22.7%), followed by obstructed labour (12.3%). Indirect causes accounted for 25.7% of maternal deaths, with malaria as the leading cause (7.5%). Health system failures were identified as the main responsible factor for the majority of cases (61.0%); in 30.3% of the cases, the main factor was patient or community related.ConclusionsThe facility-based maternal death audit approach has helped hospital teams to identify direct and indirect causes of death, and their contributing factors, and to make recommendations for actions that would reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Rwanda can complement maternal death audits with other strategies, in particular confidential enquiries and near-miss audits, so as to inform corrective measures.