As a result of this participatory priority setting, the health system becomes more tailored to the specific community's health needs and thus more likely to improve health for all.
'Accountability for reasonableness' has been used to evaluate priority setting in health systems [ 11].
The data was collected within an overall study on priority setting in health systems.
Fair and legitimate priority setting in health systems could guide stakeholders to establish priorities that enhance trust, quality and equity.
It is internationally recognized as a framework that can guide priority setting in health systems and their institutions [ 3- 5].
Community participation in priority setting in health systems has gained importance all over the world, particularly in resource-poor settings where governments have often failed to provide adequate public-sector services for their citizens.
The REACT research project, which uses an AFR framework, focuses on introducing and evaluating the outcomes of an approach to fairness in priority setting within health systems management, human resources, HIV/AIDS control, emergency obstetric care, malaria control, and generalised care.
However, there is limited knowledge on the extent to which CHWs are given opportunities to feed into health systems priority setting and bring their embedded knowledge to health systems debates' (4, p. 9).
Priority setting in every health system is complex and difficult.
Much of the priority setting in a health system occurs at the so-called 'meso' level of policy making, which includes hospitals and health insurers.
Although there has been widespread recognition of the benefit of cost-effectiveness evaluation to inform national health system priority setting, its potential has not been realized in the vast majority of countries.
