Importance of Multiple Criteria for Priority Setting of Hiv/Aids Interventions

Abstract

Objectives: This study describes the views of various stakeholders on the importance of different criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia.Methods: Based on a general list of criteria and a focus group discussion with stakeholders (n = 6), a list was developed of thirty-two criteria that play a role in priority setting in HIV/AIDS control in West-Java province. Criteria were categorized according to the World Health Organization's health system goals and building block frameworks. People living with HIV/AIDS (n = 49), healthcare workers (HCW) (n = 41), the general population (n = 43), and policy makers (n = 22) rated the importance of thirty-two criteria on a 5-point Likert-scale. Thereafter, respondents ranked the highest rated criteria to express more detailed preferences.Results: Stakeholders valued the following criteria as most important for the priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions: an intervention's impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, reduction of stigma, quality of care, effectiveness on individual level, and feasibility in terms of current capacity of the health system (i.e., HCW, product, information, and service requirements), financial sustainability, and acceptance by donors. Overall, stakeholders’ preferences for the importance of criteria are similar.Conclusions: Our study design outlines an approach for other settings to identify which criteria are important for priority setting of health interventions. For Indonesia, these study results may be used in priority setting processes for HIV/AIDS control and may contribute to more transparent and systematic allocation of resources.

Development of a composite indicator to prioritize districts for implementation of human immunodeficiency virus programmes in Maharashtra, India

“…17 Multiple indicators have been used to prioritize HIV services; these include burden of the disease, coverage and cost of services. [18][19][20][21] Chavan and colleagues used seven indicators (Total PLHIV, ICTC HIV%, PPTCT HIV%, key population estimates in recent mapping and 2009 estimates for FSWs and MSM) to prioritize districts in Gujarat. 22 Though this was a useful exercise, the parameters were restricted to the existing burden of disease and estimates of key population.…”

Translating international HIV treatment guidelines into local priorities in Indonesia

“…In step 2, the team organised a meeting (duration 90 min) in February 2013 to establish a so-called 'Consultation Panel' of 23 stakeholders, including provincial government authorities from the health, labour and education offices and the coordinating body for family In step 3, the Project Team organised a 120-min focus group discussion (FGD) [32] in March 2013 for the Consultation Panel (participation rate 43%) to determine the criteria they considered important in HIV control. As input for the discussion, a list of criteria was composed based on a survey conducted in West Java among different stakeholder groups (policymakers, lay people, PLWHA and healthcare workers) on the most important criteria for HIV control [33]. Other inputs for the list were the WHO guidelines on the strategic use of ARVs [34] and (implicit) criteria that had been used in previous National and West Java strategic plans [27].…”

A Comparative Study of Challenges and Strategic Management: Lessons Learned from SARS, MERS, HIV & Ebola Outbreaks

“…For the SARS and the MERS, more research is required to maintain the conditions. In the case of AIDS, a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is advised to consider several criteria for resource allocation [42].…”