DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

In the Idiots Guide to Health Prioritization, it is clear that prioritizing global health problems is key in allocating funds appropriately when there are limited resources and unlimited wants. Prioritization is influenced by the desires of advocacy groups, each looking out for itself. It is also influenced by the data these groups are able to use in support of their topic, because objective evidence draws attention from donors. When evaluating the DALYs and deaths in the tables of the DCP2 article, much can be left up to interpretation when deciding which cause or risk should receive the greatest priority. One must first decide whether or not targeting the low-income or the middle and high-income, and whether or not deaths or DALYs lost is a greater burden, and therefore should be focused on more thoroughly. All of this can be left up to subjective opinion. Thus, there are other variables for consideration when it comes to prioritizing, such as: equity, cost-effectiveness, and public good.

 

One must also not ignore the group dynamic and influence on prioritizing global health problems. Actors and interests play a crucial role in determining which issues get funding. If one issue has political or social traction, then it will probably gain support from funders. Global health issues, which do not affect actors personally, or are scarcely known, may have a more difficult time in gaining priority over other problems. For example, in Senegal where I did my field experience, the health problems of Talibé children were hardly known about outside of Senegal. These problems were so deeply intertwined with cultural issues, that funding was minimal due to its limited feasibility for implementation, which would require changing cultural views, before changing health. In essence it was not a "popular" issue and was given low priority in comparison with other better-known problems, which are gaining momentum, such as maternal mortality. Much must be considered when evaluating the priorities of interventions.

 

Which of the above considerations is the most important when it comes to prioritization of global health funds? Should "popularity" of an issue affect its priority? Does objective data outweigh more subjective variables like public good in comparison? Would it be better for advocacy groups to focus solely on their own specific aims and risk potentially losing funding for that area, or is it better to compromise with other advocacy groups and have funds distributed more widely across a range of global health issues?

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.