Browsing by Author "Shayo, Elizabeth H"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Accountable Priority Setting for Trust in Health Systems - the Need for Research into a New Approach for Strengthening sustainable Health Action in Developing Countries
    (BioMed Central, 2009) ByskovEmail, Jens; Bloch, Paul; Blystad, Astrid; Hurtig, Anna-Karin; Fylkesnes, Knut; Kamuzora, Peter; Kombe, Yeri; Kvåle, Gunnar; Marchal, Bruno; Martin, Douglas K; Michelo, Charles; Ndawi, Benedict; Ngulube, Thabale J; Nyamongo, Isaac; Olsen, Øystein E; Onyango-Ouma, Washington; Sandøy, Ingvild F; Shayo, Elizabeth H; Silwamba, Gavin; Songstad, Nils G; Tuba, Mary
    Despite multiple efforts to strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries, intended sustainable improvements in health outcomes have not been shown. To date most priority setting initiatives in health systems have mainly focused on technical approaches involving information derived from burden of disease statistics, cost effectiveness analysis, and published clinical trials. However, priority setting involves value-laden choices and these technical approaches do not equip decision-makers to address a broader range of relevant values - such as trust, equity, accountability and fairness - that are of concern to other partners and, not least, the populations concerned. A new focus for priority setting is needed. Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) is an explicit ethical framework for legitimate and fair priority setting that provides guidance for decision-makers who must identify and consider the full range of relevant values. AFR consists of four conditions: i) relevance to the local setting, decided by agreed criteria; ii) publicizing priority-setting decisions and the reasons behind them; iii) the establishment of revisions/appeal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions; iv) the provision of leadership to ensure that the first three conditions are met. REACT - "REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems" is an EU-funded five-year intervention study started in 2006, which is testing the application and effects of the AFR approach in one district each in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. The objectives of REACT are to describe and evaluate district-level priority setting, to develop and implement improvement strategies guided by AFR and to measure their effect on quality, equity and trust indicators. Effects are monitored within selected disease and programme interventions and services and within human resources and health systems management. Qualitative and quantitative methods are being applied in an action research framework to examine the potential of AFR to support sustainable improvements to health systems performance. This paper reports on the project design and progress and argues that there is a high need for research into legitimate and fair priority setting to improve the knowledge base for achieving sustainable improvements in health outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Challenges to Fair Decision-Making Processes in the Context of Health Care Services: A Qualitative Assessment from Tanzania
    (BioMed Central, 2012) Shayo, Elizabeth H; Norheim, Ole F; Mboera, Leonard E G; Byskov, Jens; Maluka, Stephen O.; Kamuzora, Peter; Blystad, Astrid
    Fair processes in decision making need the involvement of stakeholders who can discuss issues and reach an agreement based on reasons that are justifiable and appropriate in meeting people’s needs. In Tanzania, the policy of decentralization and the health sector reform place an emphasis on community participation in making decisions in health care. However, aspects that can influence an individual’s opportunity to be listened to and to contribute to discussion have been researched to a very limited extent in low-income settings. The objective of this study was to explore challenges to fair decision-making processes in health care services with a special focus on the potential influence of gender, wealth, ethnicity and education. We draw on the principle of fairness as outlined in the deliberative democratic theory.