58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cervical cancer and the global health agenda: Insights from multiple policy-analysis frameworks

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths for women globally, with an estimated 88% of deaths occurring in the developing world. Available technologies have dramatically reduced mortality in high-income settings, yet cervical cancer receives considerably little attention on the global health policy landscape. The authors applied four policy-analysis frameworks to literature on global cervical cancer to explore the question of why cervical cancer may not be receiving the international attention it may otherwise warrant. Each framework explores the process of agenda setting and discerns factors that either facilitate or hinder policy change in cases where there is both a clear problem and a potential effective solution. In combination, these frameworks highlight a number of crucial elements that may be needed to raise the profile of cervical cancer on global health agendas, including improving local (national or sub-national) information on the condition; increasing mobilisation of affected civil society groups; framing cervical cancer debates in ways that build upon its classification as a non-communicable disease (NCD) and an issue of women's rights; linking cervical cancer screening to well-funded services such as those for HIV treatment in some countries; and identifying key global policy windows of opportunity to promote the cervical cancer agenda, including emerging NCD global health discussions and post-2015 reviews of the Millennium Development Goals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Reframing Public Policy

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis

            Priority setting of health interventions is often ad-hoc and resources are not used to an optimal extent. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Interventions may be chosen to maximize general population health, to reduce health inequalities of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, ad/or to respond to life-threatening situations, all with respect to practical and budgetary constraints. This is the type of problem that policy makers are typically bad at solving rationally, unaided. They tend to use heuristic or intuitive approaches to simplify complexity, and in the process, important information is ignored. Next, policy makers may select interventions for only political motives. This indicates the need for rational and transparent approaches to priority setting. Over the past decades, a number of approaches have been developed, including evidence-based medicine, burden of disease analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and equity analyses. However, these approaches concentrate on single criteria only, whereas in reality, policy makers need to make choices taking into account multiple criteria simultaneously. Moreover, they do not cover all criteria that are relevant to policy makers. Therefore, the development of a multi-criteria approach to priority setting is necessary, and this has indeed recently been identified as one of the most important issues in health system research. In other scientific disciplines, multi-criteria decision analysis is well developed, has gained widespread acceptance and is routinely used. This paper presents the main principles of multi-criteria decision analysis. There are only a very few applications to guide resource allocation decisions in health. We call for a shift away from present priority setting tools in health – that tend to focus on single criteria – towards transparent and systematic approaches that take into account all relevant criteria simultaneously.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              World Development Report 1993

              (1993)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Glob Public Health
                Glob Public Health
                rgph
                Global Public Health
                Taylor & Francis
                1744-1692
                1744-1706
                18 November 2013
                December 2013
                : 8
                : 10
                : 1093-1108
                Affiliations
                [a ] Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [b ] Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                Author notes
                [] Corresponding author. Email: justin.parkhurst@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                Article
                10.1080/17441692.2013.850524
                3877944
                24236409
                b4f1bf10-fedb-488d-b9d2-84d03c3d36f5
                © 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Supplemental Terms and Conditions for iOpenAccess articles published in Taylor & Francis journals , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

                History
                : 24 September 2012
                : 4 September 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                global health policy,policy analysis,priority setting,cervical cancer,non-communicable diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article