Using burden of disease information for health planning in developing countries: the experience from Uganda
Given the growing interest in both the use of evidence in planning and in using the burden of disease measure (BOD) and cost-effectiveness analysis, we explored health planners' perception of the usefulness of the BOD in priority setting and planning in developing countries, using Uganda as an example. An exploratory qualitative approach involving in-depth interviews with key policy makers in health at district and national levels was employed. Interviews were supplemented with a review of relevant documents. Analysis involved identification of key concepts from the interviews. Concepts were grouped into categories, namely, the appeal of quantitative data, data limitations, opaque methodology, planning as a political process and opportunity costs. These form the basis of this article. We found that the BOD study results have been used as the basis for the national health policy and in defining the contents of the national essential health care package. The quantification and ranking of disease burden is appreciated by politicians and used for advocacy, resource mobilization and re-allocation. The results have also provided information for priority setting and strategic planning. Limitations to its use included poor understanding of the methodology, poor quality of data in-puts, low involvement of stakeholders, inability of the methodology to capture key non-economic issues, and the costs of carrying out the study. There is commitment, by Ugandan planners to using evidence in priority setting. Since this was an exploratory study, there is a need for more studies in developing countries to document their experiences with the use of evidence, and specifically, the BOD approach in planning and priority setting. Such information would contribute to further synthesis of the approach.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 12 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:12:p:2433-2441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.