363
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Applying stated-preference methods to improve health systems in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

, , , &
Pages 441-458 | Received 10 Jul 2017, Accepted 01 Sep 2017, Published online: 14 Sep 2017
 

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Sub-Saharan African health systems must balance shifting disease burdens with desires for robust institutions. Stated-preference methods have been applied extensively to elicit health care workers’ preferences and priorities for rural practice. This systematic review characterizes the range of their applications to African health systems problems.

Areas covered: A PRISMA protocol was submitted to PROSPERO. Six databases were queried for peer-reviewed articles using quantitative stated-preference methods to evaluate a health systems-related trade-off. Quality was assessed using the PREFS checklist. Seventy-seven articles published between 1996 and 2017 met review criteria. Methods were primarily choice-based: discrete-choice experiments (n = 46), ranking/allocation techniques (n = 21), conjoint analyses (n = 7), and best-worst scaling (n = 3). Trade-offs fell into six ‘building blocks’: service features (n = 27), workforce incentives (n = 17), product features (n = 14), system priorities (n = 14), insurance features (n = 4), and research priorities (n = 1). Five countries dominated: South Africa (n = 11), Ghana (n = 9), Malawi (n = 9), Uganda (n = 9), and Tanzania (n = 8). Discrete-choice experiments were of highest quality (mean score: 3.36/5).

Expert commentary: Stated-preference methods have been applied to many health systems contexts throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Studies examined established strategic areas, especially primary health care for women, prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, and workforce development. Studies have neglected the emerging areas of non-communicable diseases.

Declaration of Interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.