ABSTRACT
This chapter concerns transparency and accountability in the processes of setting priorities and selecting interventions. It suggests the types of criteria used for designing interventions and for priority setting, and discusses formal methods of comparing alternative interventions. Interventions can be directed at many levels and, given limited resources, the act of choosing interventions necessarily implies priority setting. In reality, the responsibility for planning and priority setting is shared by a range of stakeholders who hold different values and have different implicit and explicit criteria for setting priorities. Priority setting in the planning process may occur in choosing between alternative interventions, as well as in considering sequencing of interventions. A transparent process of choosing criteria for priority setting and weighting against the criteria can work when interventions are being applied within organisational units or localities. At the population level, political and economic criteria tend to be more important, while medical and ethical criteria may apply more strongly in relation to clinical interventions.
