Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: A synthesis of findings from 70 countries.

Stakeholder participation is a key component of a fair and equitable priority-setting in health. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for fair and equitable priority setting, and hence, stakeholder participation. To date, there is limited literature on stakeholder participation in the development of the pandemic plans (including the priority setting plans) that were rapidly developed during the pandemic. Drawing on a global study of national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans, we present a secondary analysis of COVID-19 national plans from 70 countries from the six WHO regions, focusing on stakeholder participation. We found that most plans were prepared by the Ministry of Health and acknowledged WHO guidance, however less than half mentioned that additional stakeholders were involved. Few plans described a strategy for stakeholder participation and/or accounted for public participation in the plan preparation. However, diverse stakeholders (including multiple governmental, non-governmental, and international organizations) were proposed to participate in the implementation of the plans. Overall, there was a lack of transparency about who participated in decision-making and limited evidence of meaningful participation of the community, including marginalized groups. The critical relevance of stakeholder participation in priority setting requires that governments develop strategies for meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders during pandemics such as COVID-19, and in routine healthcare priority setting.

Understanding the Role of Values in Health Policy Decision-Making From the Perspective of Policy-Makers and Stakeholders: A Multiple-Case Embedded Study in Chile and Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Chile and Colombia are examples of Latin American countries with health systems shaped by similar values. Recently, both countries have crafted policies to regulate the participation of private for-profit insurance companies in their health systems, but through very different mechanisms. This study asks: what values are important in the decision-making processes that crafted these policies? And how and why are they used? METHODS: An embedded multiple-case study design was carried out for 2 specific decisions in each country: (1) in Chile, the development of the Universal Plan of Explicit Entitlements -AUGE/GES - and mandating universal coverage of treatments for high-cost diseases; and (2) in Colombia, the declaration of health as a fundamental right and a mechanism to explicitly exclude technologies that cannot be publicly funded. We interviewed key informants involved in one or more of the decisions and/or in the policy analysis and development process that contributed to the eventual decision. The data analysis involved a constant comparative approach and thematic analysis for each case study. RESULTS: From the 40 individuals who were invited, 28 key informants participated. A tension between 2 important values was identified for each decision (eg, solidarity vs. individualism for the AUGE/GES plan in Chile; human dignity vs. sustainability for the declaration of the right to health in Colombia). Policy-makers used values in the decisionmaking process to frame problems in meaningful ways, to guide policy development, as a pragmatic instrument to make decisions, and as a way to legitimize decisions. In Chile, values such as individualism and free choice were incorporated in decision-making because attaining private health insurance was seen as an indicator of improved personal economic status. In Colombia, human dignity was incorporated as the core value because the Constitutional Court asserted its importance in its use of judicial activism as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity to open further exploration of the role of values in different health decisions, political sectors besides health, and even other jurisdictions.