Article Text

Download PDFPDF

110:oral Profile of priority setting incorporated to COVID-19 response plans in 86 countries in the world
  1. Claudia-Marcela Vélez1,
  2. Iestyn Williams2,
  3. Elysee Nouvet3,
  4. Lydia Kapiriri4,
  5. Marion Danis5,
  6. Susan Goold6,
  7. Bernardo Aguilera7,
  8. GPSet Collaboration
  1. 1Faculty of Medicine; Universidad de Antioquia; Colombia
  2. 2University of Birmingham
  3. 3Western University
  4. 4McMaster University
  5. 5National Institutes of Health
  6. 6University of Michigan
  7. 7Universidad San Sebastian


Background The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a burden on all health systems budgets and pushed policymakers to rapidly set priorities for resource allocation. This study aimed to identify quality parameters of priority setting (PS) incorporated in a sample of the national response plans.

Methods We reviewed a sample of COVID-19 national response plans from 86 countries across six regions of the WHO to assess the degree to which they included twenty quality indicators of effective PS. A quantitative descriptive analysis was used to explore the profile of PS according to independent variables.

Results The countries sampled represent 40% of countries in AFRO, 54,5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to PS quality indicators emerged by WHO region or country income levels.

As per the quality PS parameters, evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, use of scientific evidence/adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. Regarding the frequency of other parameters we found, description of a specific PS process (7%); explicit criteria for PS (36,5%); inclusion of publicity strategies (65%), mention of mechanisms for enforcing decisions, either for appealing decisions or implementing strategies to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption (20%); explicit reference to public values (15%); description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions (5%).

Conclusion We found some emphasis on PS according to contextual factors. For instance, LMICs receiving international donations presented more detailed descriptions of resources required, plans for allocating resources and improving internal accountability. HICs more likely described stakeholder participation, mechanisms for public communication, and explicit PS processes. However, no country included all twenty parameters of PS.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: .

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.