Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO)

National COVID-19 preparedness and response plans: a global review from the perspective of services for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and older people

“…The review of CPRPs up to September 2020 in 106 countries by Mustafa et al 26 indicated that 47% of plans considered the impact of COVID-19 on essential health services, and the majority of these plans had limitations in the activities they proposed to mitigate impact on essential services, and/or the integration with the COVID-19 response. Another set of three linked reviews examined CPRPs published up to December 2020 (July 2021 in one review) for evidence relating to the priority setting process 28–30. These reviews found common weaknesses in how priorities were set for the use of limited healthcare resources in the context of the pandemic, as judged against a predefined framework for a quality priority setting.…”

“…Earlier reviews have suggested that national plans and policies published until the later months of 2020 had limitations in their consideration of essential health services alongside immediate COVID-19 response to stop the pandemic,26 27 their overall processes to prioritise scarce healthcare resources28–30 or their consideration of the needs of specific populations 31 32…”

Planning with a gender lens: A gender analysis of pandemic preparedness plans from eight countries in Africa

“…For example, most national gender strategies have commitments and targets for combating gender-based violence (GBV) (i.e. Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia), yet the prevalence of GBV remains high [22] , with inadequate resource allocation to support GBV service implementation in most settings [23] . Representation in the legislature can also be a key element of a country’s gender strategy.…”

“…But there is emerging evidence that planning processes during the COVID-19 pandemic were not representative or reflective of the perspectives of key beneficiaries, including women and other populations who have been historically marginalized by disadvantage and underserved by health systems [18] , [19] . Evidence on priority setting for the COVID-19 pandemic in the WHO African region revealed that few national plans defined priority populations or vulnerable populations in the initial pandemic response plans and that women, and access to essential health services, were identified or explicitly prioritized in only a minority of plans [20] ; a finding that is consistent in many other countries around the world [21] , [22] .…”

The challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic to health systems exposed pre-existing gaps

“…Along similar lines, Velez et.al have also analyzed national COVID-19 pandemic response, focusing on preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO [11] . While plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, none presented a clear description of the priority setting (PS) process (e.g., a formal PS framework, and PS criteria).…”