Kara Hanson

Bio: Kara Hanson is an academic researcher from University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Health policy. The author has an hindex of 53, co-authored 237 publications receiving 10832 citations. Previous affiliations of Kara Hanson include Harvard University.

How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country.

Abstract: Understanding the preferences of patients and health professionals is useful for health policy and planning. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences that can be used in the absence of revealed preference data. The method involves asking individuals to state their preference over hypothetical alternative scenarios, goods or services. Each alternative is described by several attributes and the responses are used to determine whether preferences are significantly influenced by the attributes and also their relative importance. DCEs are widely used in high-income contexts and are increasingly being applied in low- and middle-income countries to consider a range of policy concerns. This paper aims to provide an introduction to DCEs for policy-makers and researchers with little knowledge of the technique. We outline the stages involved in undertaking a DCE, with an emphasis on the design considerations applicable in a low-income setting.

Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Abstract: Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) are the sum of the present value of future years of lifetime lost through premature mortality, and the present value of years of future lifetime adjusted for the average severity (frequency and intensity) of any mental or physical disability caused by a disease or injury They have been used as an outcome indicator in micro economic evaluations as well as sectoral prioritization exercises using league tables of cost-effectiveness However, many of the current analyses are not comparable or transferable because either the assumptions used differ or are unclear, and because results are not presented in a way that allows researchers or policy-makers to re-calculate and re-interpret findings for use in an alternative context However, at times there have also been miscalculations This may happen either because evaluators disagree with the assumptions behind DALYs or because the methods of calculation have not been set out clearly This paper shows how to calculate DALYs for cost-effectiveness analysis using a worked example It also shows the impact of changing the age weighting and discount rates on estimates of cost-effectiveness, and suggests a set of minimum reporting criteria for using DALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis Finally, readers are introduced briefly to a selected literature arguing for and against the use of DALYs

Building the Field of Health Policy and Systems Research: Framing the Questions

Abstract: The field of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) is currently experiencing an unprecedented level of interest. The First Global Symposium on Health Systems Research, held in Montreux, Switzerland, in November 2010, is the most recent of a succession of conferences and task force deliberations that have spun off a series of debates about the nature of the field and the future directions it should take. Establishing the identity and terrain of HPSR is part of these debates, which is made difficult by the fact that it is an essentially multidisciplinary field delimited not by methodology but by the topic and scope of research questions asked. In this paper, the first of a series of three addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of HPSR, we introduce and map the types of research questions that it has addressed over its natural course of evolution, analyze the nature of current heightened attention, and highlight emerging opportunities and challenges for the development of the field. We use the extended term Health Policy and Systems Research for a field that is often referred to simply as Health Systems Research. For us, the broader term better captures the terrain of work it encompasses because it explicitly identifies the interconnections between policy and systems, and highlights the social and political nature of the field. The geographical focus of our concern is low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1], but we suggest that our approach also has value for high-income countries. Our understanding of the evolution of HPSR draws primarily from the English language literature, which we acknowledge as a limitation. However, this reflects global discussion about the field, which has tended to neglect literature in other languages.

Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science matters.

Abstract: The first paper in this series on building the field of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1] outlined the scope and questions of the field and highlighted the key challenges and opportunities it is currently facing. This paper examines more closely one key challenge, the risk of disciplinary capture—the imposition of a particular knowledge frame on the field, privileging some questions and methodologies above others. In HPSR the risk of disciplinary capture can be seen in the current methodological critique of the field, with consequences for its status and development (especially when expressed by research leaders). The main criticisms are reported to be: that the context specificity of the research makes generalisation from its findings difficult; lack of sufficiently clear conclusions for policy makers; and questionable quality and rigour [2]. Some critique is certainly warranted and has come from HPS researchers themselves. However, this critique also reflects a clash of knowledge paradigms, between some of those with clinical, biomedical, and epidemiological backgrounds and those with social science backgrounds. Yet, as HPSR is defined by the topics and questions it considers rather than a particular disciplinary approach, it requires engagement across disciplines; indeed, understanding the complexity of health policy and systems demands multi- and inter-disciplinary inquiry [3]. To develop the science of HPSR it is, therefore, important to start by recognising the diversity of disciplinary perspectives, as well as shared concerns. Richer methodologies for addressing these concerns must then be developed. And, as health policies and systems are themselves social and political constructions, it is important to acknowledge the particular value of social science perspectives in the field. Each of these issues is addressed in the following sections, and they are considered further in paper three of the series [4].