IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritizing solutions to incorporate Prosthetics and Orthotics services into Iranian health benefits package: Using an analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Saeed Shahabi
  • Shahina Pardhan
  • Ahmad Ahmadi Teymourlouy
  • Dimitrios Skempes
  • Shabnam Shahali
  • Parviz Mojgani
  • Maryam Jalali
  • Kamran Bagheri Lankarani

Abstract

Introduction: Health benefits package (HBP) is regarded as one of the main dimensions of health financing strategy. Even with increasing demands for prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) services to approximately 0.5% of the world’s population, only 15% of vulnerable groups have the chance to make use of such benefits. Inadequate coverage of P&O services in the HBP is accordingly one of the leading reasons for this situation in many countries, including Iran. Aims: The main objective of this study was to find and prioritize solutions in order to facilitate and promote P&O services in the Iranian HBP. Study design: A mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) research design was employed in this study. Methods: This study was conducted in two phases. First, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to retrieve potential solutions. Then an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) reflecting on seven criteria of acceptability, effectiveness, time, cost, feasibility, burden of disease, and fairness was performed to prioritize them. Results: In total, 26 individuals participated in semi-structured interviews and several policy solutions were proposed. Following the AHP, preventive interventions, infant-specific interventions, inpatient interventions, interventions until 6 years of age, and emergency interventions gained the highest priority to incorporate in the Iranian HBP. Conclusion: A number of policy solutions were explored and prioritized for P&O services in the Iranian HBP. Our findings provide a framework for decision- and policy-makers in Iran and other countries aiming to curb the financial burdens of P&O users, especially in vulnerable groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Saeed Shahabi & Shahina Pardhan & Ahmad Ahmadi Teymourlouy & Dimitrios Skempes & Shabnam Shahali & Parviz Mojgani & Maryam Jalali & Kamran Bagheri Lankarani, 2021. "Prioritizing solutions to incorporate Prosthetics and Orthotics services into Iranian health benefits package: Using an analytic hierarchy process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253001
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253001&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Gang Chen, 2018. "Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 797-806, July.
    2. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    3. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    4. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    5. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    6. E. Wetering & N. Exel & J. Rose & R. Hoefman & W. Brouwer, 2016. "Are some QALYs more equal than others?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, March.
    7. Erik Nord & Rune Johansen, 2015. "Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 313-328, April.
    8. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    9. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    10. Øystein Ariansen Haaland & Frode Lindemark & Kjell Arne Johansson, 2019. "A flexible formula for incorporating distributive concerns into cost-effectiveness analyses: Priority weights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-12, October.
    11. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Jose Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2022. "Reference‐dependent age weighting of quality‐adjusted life years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2515-2536, December.
    12. Herlitz, Anders & Horan, David, 2016. "Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 96-102.
    13. World Bank, 2015. "Bulgaria Health Financing," World Bank Publications - Reports 22964, The World Bank Group.
    14. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    15. Juan Oliva-Moreno, 2023. "Response letter for the comment made on our article entitled “Does the inclusion of societal costs change the economic evaluations recommendations? A systematic review for multiple sclerosis disease”,," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(4), pages 663-672, June.
    16. Ottersen, Trygve & Førde, Reidun & Kakad, Meetali & Kjellevold, Alice & Melberg, Hans Olav & Moen, Atle & Ringard, Ånen & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2016. "A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 246-251.
    17. Erik Nord, 2018. "Beyond QALYs: Multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 267-275, March.
    18. Reckers-Droog, V.T. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2018. "Looking back and moving forward: On the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 621-629.
    19. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    20. Nord, Erik, 2012. "Measuring concerns for severity: Re-examination of a health scale with purported equal interval properties," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 312-316.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.