How Intersectoral Priority Setting Can Support Action on Social Determinants of Health: A Qualitative Case Study From Pakistan’s Federal Health Ministry
4 affiliations
- 1Bergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting in Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
- 2Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
- 3Takemi Program for International Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
- 4Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
Background:: Intersectoral actions can improve population health and reduce health inequities by addressing social determinants of health. Priority setting methods are used by health ministries to rationalize resource allocation within the sector, but not for intersectoral actions.
Methods:: We conducted a qualitative case study of an intersectoral priority setting exercise—a novel use of priority setting methods—undertaken by Pakistan’s Federal Ministry of Health between 2019–2022. Drawing on theories of agenda setting and priority setting, we examined the priority setting process through key informant interviews. We explored the perceived appropriateness of the priority setting approach and the challenges encountered during its implementation across sectors.
Results:: Our findings reveal that the process of intersectoral priority setting is deeply influenced by its political and institutional context. According to respondents, existing institutional structures and norms in Pakistan are not optimally suited to support intersectoral actions for health, although there is growing recognition of their importance. Regardless of sector, all respondents view engaging in intersectoral actions as part of the health ministry’s responsibility for population health. Priority setting, thereby, is viewed as a way of clarifying the health ministry’s intersectoral agenda. However, intersectoral priority setting methods are seen as underdeveloped in terms of available evidence, standardized economic and policy evaluation, and deliberative mechanisms. Respondents suggest that to implement the prioritized intersectoral agenda, the health ministry must effectively navigate the political space outside the health sector, such as by highlighting shared benefits, grounding the intersectoral agenda in local needs, and leveraging the political dynamics of other sectors. Moreover, this political engagement must be complemented by competence in evidence generation and communication to influence cross-sectoral policy dialogues.
Conclusion:: Using a priority setting approach, health ministries can systematically advance intersectoral health agendas by building political coalitions around shared priorities supported by rigorous evidence and analysis.
Related
- Community barriers, perceptions, and health-seeking behaviors within the one health approach in six priority districts of Rwanda: a descriptive qualitative study
- Evaluation of surveillance performance and determinants for priority vaccine-preventable diseases in Niger State, Nigeria: A CDC 2001 Guideline-based multilevel analysis
- Molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance determinants of Corynebacterium diphtheriae causing infections in Karachi, Pakistan, 2023–2024
- Prevalence and Determinants of Gastro‐Esophageal Reflux Disease Among Medical Students: A Cross‐Sectional Study From Pakistan
- Stakeholder perspectives on implementing geographic information systems for leprosy elimination in Pakistan: A qualitative study
BibTeX
@article{aftab2026intersectoral,
title = {{How Intersectoral Priority Setting Can Support Action on Social Determinants of Health: A Qualitative Case Study From Pakistan’s Federal Health Ministry}},
author = {Wafa Aftab and Ole F. Norheim and Inger Lise Teig and Sameen Siddiqi and Jesse B. Bump},
journal = {International Journal of Health Policy and Management},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.34172/ijhpm.9208},
url = {https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.9208},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - How Intersectoral Priority Setting Can Support Action on Social Determinants of Health: A Qualitative Case Study From Pakistan’s Federal Health Ministry
AU - Wafa Aftab
AU - Ole F. Norheim
AU - Inger Lise Teig
AU - Sameen Siddiqi
AU - Jesse B. Bump
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - International Journal of Health Policy and Management
DO - 10.34172/ijhpm.9208
UR - https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.9208
AB - Background:: Intersectoral actions can improve population health and reduce health inequities by addressing social determinants of health. Priority setting methods are used by health ministries to rationalize resource allocation within the sector, but not for intersectoral actions. Methods:: We conducted a qualitative case study of an intersectoral priority setting exercise—a novel use of priority setting methods—undertaken by Pakistan’s Federal Ministry of Health between 2019–2022. Drawing on theories of agenda setting and priority setting, we examined the priority setting process through key informant interviews. We explored the perceived appropriateness of the priority setting approach and the challenges encountered during its implementation across sectors. Results:: Our findings reveal that the process of intersectoral priority setting is deeply influenced by its political and institutional context. According to respondents, existing institutional structures and norms in Pakistan are not optimally suited to support intersectoral actions for health, although there is growing recognition of their importance. Regardless of sector, all respondents view engaging in intersectoral actions as part of the health ministry’s responsibility for population health. Priority setting, thereby, is viewed as a way of clarifying the health ministry’s intersectoral agenda. However, intersectoral priority setting methods are seen as underdeveloped in terms of available evidence, standardized economic and policy evaluation, and deliberative mechanisms. Respondents suggest that to implement the prioritized intersectoral agenda, the health ministry must effectively navigate the political space outside the health sector, such as by highlighting shared benefits, grounding the intersectoral agenda in local needs, and leveraging the political dynamics of other sectors. Moreover, this political engagement must be complemented by competence in evidence generation and communication to influence cross-sectoral policy dialogues. Conclusion:: Using a priority setting approach, health ministries can systematically advance intersectoral health agendas by building political coalitions around shared priorities supported by rigorous evidence and analysis.
SN - 2322-5939
ER -