Thanks for bringing attention to this. I've now had a look and completed the WHO 2 min survey.
It's hard to comment on some of your points as a lot doesn't seem to be live yet does it? The references aren't hyperlinked or is it operator error (ie me!).
Anyway, here are some of my thoughts:
It would be great if there was a tool that enabled you to calculate both the value to a population and the cost of achieving it. This would need a tool that offered you:
1. Latest data on cost-effectiveness with references
2. A way to calculate the size of the population who would benefit (expressed as rate per 100,000) and references to support that
3. Price ranges - what do the interventions currently cost in a range of settings (which is different from their cost-effectiveness).
It looks as if some of that is work in progress?
Meanwhile, there is a tool that creates visualisations that enables stakeholders to come together to discuss:
It would be good if the WHO tool could do this.
If you take a single example, asthma. There are a number of interventions listed, but actually, there isn't guidance about priority order. What we know is that there is a priority order, and at the top is universal access to affordable inhaled corticosteroids, devices (spacers), plus primary care education about chronic disease management and incentives to diagnose.
HIFA profile: Sian Williams is Chief Executive Officer at the International Primary Care Respiratory Group in the UK. Professional interests: Implementation science, NCDs, primary care, respiratory health, education, evaluation, value, breaking down silos. sian.health AT gmail.com