IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v99y2011i3p244-249.html

Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Meremikwu, Martin
  • Udoh, Ekong
  • Nwagbara, Bridget
  • Effa, Emmanuel
  • Oringanje, Chioma
  • Edet, Bassey
  • Nwagbara, Eucharia
  • Bello, Segun
  • Eke, Felix

Abstract

Objectives In an era of evidence based medicine and systematic review, this study seeks to identify priority systematic review topics that address common health problems in Nigeria.Methods Firstly, a primary list of health problems was compiled from the National Health Management Information Systems and information from key informants (health professionals, researchers and NGOs) drawn from the six geo-political zones in Nigeria. Key steps included compilation and ranking of a comprehensive list of health problems into 4 categories: adult communicable, non-communicable, maternal and child health; searching the Cochrane Library and electronic databases for systematic reviews on identified priority problems, analysis of search outputs to identify gaps; listing and ranking of new priority systematic review topics using pre-determined criteria.Results Eighteen questions made the final list of priorities systematic reviews and 9 of them were related to malaria. There were 7 additional issues that the panelists identified as crucial cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in systematic reviews.Conclusion Identification and prioritization of systematic reviews relevant to health care in Nigeria will improve the opportunity to deliver evidence-based and equitable health care to the people. These topics are likely to be also important for health care decision in other resource-poor settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Meremikwu, Martin & Udoh, Ekong & Nwagbara, Bridget & Effa, Emmanuel & Oringanje, Chioma & Edet, Bassey & Nwagbara, Eucharia & Bello, Segun & Eke, Felix, 2011. "Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 244-249, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:99:y:2011:i:3:p:244-249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(10)00336-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    2. Sassi, Franco, 2003. "Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 141-154, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    2. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    3. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Panagiotoglou, Dimitra & Dragojlovic, Nick & Lynd, Larry, 2021. "Methodology for constructing scenarios for health policy research: The case of coverage decision-making for drugs for rare diseases in Canada," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0204187 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    6. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    7. McMahon, Meghan & Morgan, Steve & Mitton, Craig, 2006. "The Common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 339-351, August.
    8. Douw, Karla & Vondeling, Hindrik & Oortwijn, Wija, 2006. "Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: Views of health care stakeholders and health economists," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 334-345, May.
    9. Li, Kathy K. & Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Contandriopoulos, Damien, 2015. "Conceptualizing the use of public involvement in health policy decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 14-21.
    10. Sandy Oliver & David Armes & Gill Gyte, 2009. "Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 179-190, September.
    11. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    12. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    13. Bing Wang & Yiwei Lyu, 2023. "Research on the Compilation of a Composite Index from the Perspective of Public Value—The Case of the Global Health Security Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    15. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    16. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    17. Ozieranski, Piotr & McKee, Martin & King, Lawrence, 2012. "The politics of health technology assessment in Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 178-193.
    18. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    19. Armstrong, Kristy & Mitton, Craig & Carleton, Bruce & Shoveller, Jean, 2008. "Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 308-316, December.
    20. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    21. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:99:y:2011:i:3:p:244-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.