Prioritization of public health financing, organization, and workforce transformation: a Delphi study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The increased scrutiny on public health brought upon by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic provides a strong impetus for a renewal of public health systems. This paper seeks to understand priorities of public health decision-makers for reforms to public health financing, organization, interventions, and workforce. METHODS: We used an online 3-round real-time Delphi method of reaching consensus on priorities for public health systems reform. Participants were recruited among individuals holding senior roles in Canadian public health institutions, ministries of health and regional health authorities. In Round 1, participants were asked to rate 9 propositions related to public health financing, organization, workforce, and interventions. Participants were also asked to contribute up to three further ideas in relation to these topics in open-ended format. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants re-appraised their ratings in the view of the group's ratings in the previous round. RESULTS: Eighty-six public health senior decision-makers from various public health organizations across Canada were invited to participate. Of these, 25/86 completed Round 1 (29% response rate), 19/25 completed Round 2 (76% retention rate) and 18/19 completed Round 3 (95% retention rate). Consensus (defined as more than 70% of importance rating) was achieved for 6 out of 9 propositions at the end of the third round. In only one case, the consensus was that the proposition was not important. Proposition rated consensually important relate to targeted public health budget, time frame for spending this budget, and the specialization of public health structures. Both interventions related and not related to the COVID-19 pandemic were judged important. Open-ended comments further highlighted priorities for renewal in public health governance and public health information management systems. CONCLUSION: Consensus emerged rapidly among Canadian public health decision-makers on prioritizing public health budget and time frame for spending. Ensuring that public health services beyond COVID-19 and communicable disease are maintained and enhanced is also of central importance. Future research shall explore potential trade-offs between these priorities.

Public Attitudes Toward Priority Setting Principles in Health Care During COVID-19.

What role should cost-effectiveness play in health care priority setting? We assess the level of acceptance toward different priority setting principles in health care during COVID-19 and in general, thereby exploring public support for principles presented at different levels of abstraction. An online survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the Swedish population (n = 1 553). The results show that respondents were generally more supportive of priority setting principles when expressed in general abstract terms than when expressed in more case specific concrete terms. However, prioritization based on cost-effectiveness was deemed as more acceptable when expressed in concrete terms related to health maximization rather than as an abstract principle. Respondents had a general inclination in support of physicians and other health care professionals the primary responsibility for the allocation of scarce resources in the healthcare during COVID-19, while being less supportive of health economists and politicians being involved in these decisions.

Identifying the asthma research priorities of people with asthma, their carers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: People living with asthma, their carers, clinicians and policymakers are the end-users of research and need research that address their individual healthcare needs. We aimed to understand the research priorities of end-users of asthma research. METHODS: A national cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted. The study included an online survey that engaged patients, carers, healthcare professionals and policymakers to provide statements to free-text questions about what they would like to see answered by research to improve living with asthma on a day-to-day basis. Responses where thematically analysed followed by three online priority setting consensus workshops. RESULTS: There were 593 respondents who provided 1446 text comments. Participants prioritized 10 asthma research themes which were: (1) asthma in children, (2) COVID 19 and asthma, (3) asthma care and self-management, (4) diagnosis and medication, (5) managing asthma attacks, (6) causes, prevention and features of asthma, (7) mental health, (8) asthma and ageing, (9) severe asthma, (10) asthma and other health conditions. Each theme comprises specific research questions. CONCLUSION: This project successfully established 10 priority research themes for asthma, reflecting the collective voice of the end-users of this research. These novel data can be used to address the documented mismatch in research prioritization between the research community and the end-users of research.

A rapid priority setting exercise combining existing, emergent evidence with stakeholder knowledge identified broad topic uncertainties.

OBJECTIVE: The project aimed to rapidly identify priority topic uncertainties as a first step to identify future systematic review questions of pertinence to key international faecal incontinence (FI) stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and voluntary, community or social enterprise representatives). The paper aim is to share our methods, experience and learning with other groups planning to deliver a rapid priority setting exercise. STUDY DESIGN: An evidence gap map incorporated three evidence streams: emerging evidence identified through horizon scanning; existing evidence identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases; and FI stakeholder insights collected through an international survey. The evidence gap map was presented during an online workshop with stakeholders, where they shared their expertise to expand, refine and rank topic uncertainties using ideation techniques, focus group discussions, consensus techniques and online polling. RESULTS: The multi-step methods used to deliver this priority-setting exercise resulted in identification of broad priority topic uncertainties. The methods appear to have high acceptability and engagement with participants but await full evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This project successfully followed robust methodology, building upon frameworks from published priority setting and evidence gap mapping projects whilst incorporating strong patient and public involvement components.

Frailty as a Priority-Setting Criterion for Potentially Lifesaving Treatment-Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Circularity, and Indirect Discrimination?

Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event. Frailty is most frequently assessed in the old using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CSF) which ranks frailty from 1 to 9. This assessment typically takes less than one minute and is not validated in patients with learning difficulties or those under 65 years old. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed guidelines that use "frailty" as one of the priority-setting criteria for how scarce, but potentially lifesaving, health care resources should be allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar guidelines have been developed elsewhere. This paper discusses the ethical implications of such rationing and argues that this is an unproven and ethically problematic form of health care rationing. It specifically discusses: (1) how the frailty ascription becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, (2) the problematic use of "frailty" in COVID-19 "triage," (3) the circularity of the link between age and frailty, (4) indirect discrimination because of the use of a seemingly neutral criterion in health care rationing, and (5) the difficult link between comorbidities and frailty. It is found that there was no research into the use of global frailty scores as a criterion for access to acute treatment before January 2020 and so it is concerning how readily frailty scoring has been adopted to ration access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Existing gerontological frailty scoring systems have not been developed for this purpose, and repurposing them creates significant ethical issues.

Stability of Stated Preferences: Vaccine Priority Setting before and during the First COVID-19 Lockdown.

BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are. OBJECTIVE: To investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE. METHODS: We replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency. RESULTS: The number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile. CONCLUSION: Different preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small. HIGHLIGHTS: We replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Priority topics for child and family health research in community-based paediatric health care according to caregivers and health care professionals.

Background: Patient-oriented research (POR) aligns research with stakeholders' priorities to improve health services and outcomes. Community-based health care settings offer an opportunity to engage stakeholders to determine the most important research topics to them. Our objectives were to identify unanswered questions that stakeholders had regarding any aspect of child and family health and prioritize their 'top 10' questions. Methods: We followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting methodology in partnership with stakeholders from the Northeast Community Health Centre (NECHC; Edmonton, Canada). We partnered with stakeholders (five caregivers, five health care professionals [HCPs]) to create a steering committee. Stakeholders were surveyed in two rounds (n = 125 per survey) to gather and rank-order unanswered questions regarding child and family health. A final priority setting workshop was held to finalize the 'top 10' list. Results: Our initial survey generated 1,265 submissions from 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Out of scope submissions were removed and similar questions were combined to create a master list of questions (n = 389). Only unanswered questions advanced (n = 108) and were rank-ordered through a second survey by 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Stakeholders (n = 12) gathered for the final workshop to discuss and finalize the 'top 10' list. Priority questions included a range of topics, including mental health, screen time, COVID-19, and behaviour. Conclusion: Our stakeholders prioritized diverse questions within our 'top 10' list; questions regarding mental health were the most common. Future patient-oriented research at this site will be guided by priorities that were most important to caregivers and HCPs.

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

Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting. Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison. Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS. Discussion and conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.

Priority setting for pandemic preparedness and response: A comparative analysis of COVID-19 pandemic plans in 12 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted health systems and exacerbated pre-existing resource gaps in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO-EMRO). Active humanitarian and refugee crises have led to mass population displacement and increased health system fragility, which has implication for equitable priority setting (PS). We examine whether and how PS was included in national COVID-19 pandemic plans within EMRO. Methods: An analysis of COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of 12/22 countries in WHO-EMRO. We assessed the degree to which documented PS processes adhere to twenty established quality parameters of effective PS. Results: While all reviewed plans addressed some aspect of PS, none included all quality parameters. Yemen's plan included the highest number (9) of quality parameters, while Egypt's addressed the lowest (3). Most plans used evidence in their planning processes. While no plans explicitly identify equity as a criterion to guide PS; many identified vulnerable populations - a key component of equitable PS. Despite high concentrations of refugees, migrants, and IDPs in EMRO, only a quarter of the plans identified them as vulnerable. Conclusion: PS setting challenges are exacerbated by conflict and the resulting health system fragmentation. Systematic and quality PS is essential to tackle long-term health implications of COVID-19 for vulnerable populations in this region, and to support effective PS and equitable resource allocation.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

Research priorities to prevent and treat diabetic foot ulcers-A digital James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

AIM: To establish outcomes of a priority setting partnership between participants with diabetes mellitus and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was adapted into a digital format which involved a pilot survey to identify understandable uncertainties with high relevance for participants tested by calculating the content validity index; a main survey answered by 53 participants living with diabetes and 49 clinicians; and a final digital workshop to process and prioritise the final top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The content validity index was satisfactory for 20 out of 25 uncertainties followed by minor changes and one additional uncertainty. After we processed the 26 uncertainties from the main survey and seven current guidelines, a list of 28 research uncertainties remained for review and discussion in the digital workshop. The final top 10 research priorities included the organisation of diabetes care; screening of diabetes, impaired blood circulation, neuropathy, and skin properties; vascular surgical treatment; importance of self-care; help from significant others; pressure relief; and prevention of infection. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating DFUs represent consensus areas from persons living with diabetes and clinicians to guide future research. These research priorities can justify and inform strategic allocation of research funding. The digitalisation of James Lind Alliance methodology was feasible.

Developing an obesity research agenda with British Pakistani women living in deprived areas with involvement from multisectoral stakeholders: Research priority setting with a seldom heard group.

INTRODUCTION: British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda. METHODS: A two-step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n = 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n = 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31 statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system. RESULTS: Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well-being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population. CONCLUSION: Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into a research agenda.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

BACKGROUND: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps. METHODS: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables. RESULTS: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

COVID-19 vaccination program in South Korea: A long journey toward a new normal.

Objectives: This article presents an overview of South Korea's COVID-19 vaccination program and describes the key measures the country enacted to overcome the initial vaccine shortage and expand the vaccinated population. Methods: Review of official government documents, international and local databases, and media reports regarding the COVID-19 vaccination program. Results: South Korea overcame the early phase of vaccine shortage and quickly expanded vaccination coverage by evidence-based priority setting and transparent information sharing using innovative technologies. Conclusions: It was important to secure effective and safe vaccines as early as possible to fight against COVID-19, yet the delayed start did not equate to failure. Persistent innovation and rapid adaptation to changing circumstances allowed South Korea to expand its vaccination coverage despite the initial delay in procuring vaccine doses. However, the emergence of virus variants and the waning effect of the vaccines require that Korea initiate a new vaccination program that includes booster shots. Public Interest Summary: Vaccination is a safe and effective way to fight against COVID-19. However, acquiring adequate vaccine supply and administering doses safely and effectively are difficult tasks. South Korea accomplished this mission initially using innovative technologies and rapidly adapting to changing circumstances. However, new variants and decreasing vaccine efficacy induce the Korean government to begin another vaccination program that includes booster shots.

Supporting the pandemic response and timely access to COVID-19 vaccines: a case for stronger priority setting and health system governance in Nigeria.

Priority setting and health system governance are critical for optimising healthcare interventions and determining how best to allocate limited resources. The COVID-19 pandemic has buttressed the need for these especially now that vaccines are available to curb the spread of the disease. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), vaccine coverage remains low, due in large part to sub-optimal priority setting and health system governance which has led to inequities in access and has fuelled vaccine hesitancy. An analysis of the situation in Nigeria identified key issues that have affected the health system response to COVID-19 and impeded timely access to the vaccine. These include weak vaccine procurement strategies, limited evidence on strategies for prioritising recipients and approaches for rolling out mass vaccination programmes for the entire population, lack of a communication strategy to reduce the incidence of vaccine hesitancy and failures to proactively address vaccine hesitancy through the implementation of vaccination programmes. Nigeria and other many other LMICs are still facing the prospect of subsequent and potentially worsening waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without effective priority setting, there is a risk that the country will not accelerate vaccine rollout quickly enough to achieve high coverage rates that will ensure herd immunity. In the context of existing weaknesses in health system governance, there is an urgent need to strengthen priority settings in Nigeria and identify and implement context-specific solutions that can improve vaccine coverage for the population.

Identifying priorities, directions and a vision for Indigenous mental health using a collaborative and consensus-based facilitation approach.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada are related to underlying economic, social, and political inequities that are legacies of colonization and the oppression of Indigenous cultures. It also widely acknowledged that mental health services currently available may not be culturally appropriate in supporting the health needs of Indigenous Canadians. A two-day Indigenous mental health forum examined mental health needs and gaps among Indigenous communities across the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) on Treaty 8 territory, in northern Alberta, Canada. This paper outlines the insights generated by stakeholder engagement at the forum to identify and prioritize directions for Indigenous mental health and build a vision and strategy for improving mental health services and programs for the region's diverse Indigenous population. METHODS: We applied a modified nominal group technique (NGT) consensus method embedded within Indigenous knowledge to determine key priorities and directions for Indigenous-focused mental health and synthesize information from discussions that occurred at the forum. Following the NGT, a participatory community visioning exercise was conducted with participants to develop a vision, guiding principles, and components of an action plan for an Indigenous mental health strategy for the RMWB. RESULTS: Four key themes for setting priorities and directions for Indigenous mental health emerged from roundtable group discussions: 1) understand the realities of mental health experiences for Indigenous peoples, 2) design a holistic and culturally rooted mental health system, 3) foster cross-sectoral engagement and collaboration on mental health service delivery, and 4) focus on children and youth. The community visioning exercise helped stakeholders to visualize a direction or path forward for addressing existing gaps in the mental health system and opportunities for strengthening Indigenous mental health in the region. CONCLUSIONS: Forum participants described mental health and well-being around holistic concepts of social and emotional well-being. Addressing Indigenous mental health and wellness involves multi-sectoral action in various settings including community and school through programs, policies, and other interventions that promote mental health for all Indigenous peoples, as well as for those at greater risk such as children and youth.

Knowledge gaps and national research priorities for COVID-19 in Iran.

BACKGROUND: In the present COVID-19 crisis, one of the greatest challenges for research funding at both the international and national level is selecting the best research topic to achieve efficiency and equity in health research and to address the knowledge gap urgently raised due to the event. Despite international recommendations, countries should consider their context-specific situation and define local research priorities. We aimed to exercise a priority-setting activity to identify the knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran. METHODS: First, we tried to identify the contextual knowledge gaps based on an online survey, performing key informant interviews (i.e. health professionals, policy-makers and managers) and media analysis. We also performed a literature review and considered international research priorities for COVID-19. Subsequently, we prepared a list of research questions and challenges to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in Iran using a systems approach. Then we mapped approved COVID-19 research projects in the country to research questions. Finally, we compared the identified research questions (not challenges) with the prioritized research from international organizations and then prioritized them for Iran. RESULTS: We found risk factors and epidemiological dissemination patterns of the virus and its consequences in an epidemiology domain, implementation of clinical and hygiene in a clinical management domain, genetic studies for targeting prevention and treatment in a candidate treatment and vaccine research and development (R&D) knowledge domain, examination of the manifestations of ethics in society instead of ethics in research in an ethics domain, "care, access and health system" and "public health and participation in response to public health and clinical research" as two sub-domains of a social sciences domain, and finally, no new questions in either the virology, transmission, diagnosis or animal and environmental domain. CONCLUSIONS: In the event of global health crises like COVID-19, prioritization of research questions can be done globally, but some of the research priorities are context-specific and may vary by regional needs. To better manage research resources, researchers must respond to the challenges faced in each country based on its political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, and to make evidence-informed decisions, global knowledge gaps must be customized in each country.

Public health priority setting: A case for priority to the worse off in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions.