A comprehensive review of infectious disease prioritization studies published between 1990 and 2014 was undertaken in Spring 2014 to identify key criteria that should be considered for inclusion in a generic model (Table 1). These questions should be addressed early on in the prioritization exercise and responses are likely to vary depending on the specific prioritization context. A process owner (usually a senior member of the public health team) will need to take responsibility for leading the process and completing the Prioritisation Framework. Public Health Nutr. Climate change signals are inherently difficult to separate out from the multitude of other driving forces (such as land use patterns, globalization and associated transport of goods, travel, etc.) Differences in stakeholder choices were examined with regards to prioritization of these criteria for research, surveillance and disease prevention and control objectives. The studies included a mean of 12 criteria (range 5-41). We use some essential cookies to make this website work. Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop and update guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address [3]. Due to the rapid accumulation of new evidence, guideline development should be followed by revisions and update as necessary [2]. Parker R, Tomlinson E, Concannon TW, Akl E, Petkovic J, Welch VA, Crowe S, Palm M, Marusic A, Ekanem C, Akl IB, Saginur M, Moja L, Kuchenmller T, Slingers N, Teixeira L, Dormer L, Lang E, Arayssi T, Greer-Smith R, Brahem AB, Avey M, Tugwell P. J Gen Intern Med. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190049, Editor: Kristie L. Ebi, University of Washington, UNITED STATES, Received: June 4, 2017; Accepted: December 7, 2017; Published: December 27, 2017. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. Adaptation to vector-borne diseases will require both incremental and transformational approaches [6]. 2022 Dec;37(16):4047-4053. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w. Epub 2022 Feb 7. 2017;86:1124. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. A third reviewer (RF) verified independently the proposed criteria against the ones reported by the included studies. Also, updating guidelines requires prioritization of which guidelines, guideline sections, or recommendations need to be updated [10]. Individual criteria weights were however found to differ within categories and across intervention domains (Fig 3). An attempt at including a broader range of voices in the vector-borne disease prioritization process has been done in the current study. 2012;9(5):2258. Article For example, Schnemann et al. The net benefit of this involvement needs to be further examined in developing prioritization approaches, as very few studies considered this aspect [23, 24]. This project is also nested within the Initiative de Recherche Internationale sur l'Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques - Faire-face Aux Changements Ensemble program funded by the International Development Research Centre, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council from Canada. Stakeholder involvement and the use of prioritization criteria represented key aspects of most of the prioritization approaches. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. DEVELOPING CRITERIA FOR PROBLEM/ISSUE PRIORITIZATION . For example, the measure of whether a disease is increasing or decreasing in the population can be captured as a criterion on the current incidence of human cases in the country; however, other concerns must also be evaluated such as what is the severity of the disease, do effective treatments already exist to limit the disease, is the general population already aware of and adopting effective protective behaviour to prevent the disease? The Prioritisation Framework: how it works, Using the Prioritisation Framework in your area, Find out about the Energy Bills Support Scheme, The Prioritisation Framework: making the most of your budget, nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3, Department for Communities and Local Government, which programmes could offer the greatest value in the future, the current state of programmes that are being delivered, the budget currently divided across programmes, how well a programme tackles inequalities. Health Res Policy Syst. Public Health. Sensitivity analysis results with weight stability intervals for all criteria by all stakeholders for the research domain are shown in Table 6 in descending order of stability (from least stable to most stable). Table2 shows steps of the development process of each of the 10 included approaches for prioritizing guideline topics. Tan A, Nagraj SK, Nasser M, Sharma T, Kuchenmller T. Bull Natl Res Cent. We conducted a calibration exercise to enhance the validity of the process. For example, how much should be invested in surveillance activities, including vector surveillance and laboratory testing of novel pathogens, for diseases that are not yet endemic in Canada when resources for surveillance of existing diseases are limited? Disclaimer. Nature of the Problem Round 1 vote - Once a list of health problems has been established, each participant votes for their highest priority items. A pilot vector-borne disease prioritization exercise was conducted using PROMETHEE to examine the effects of the retained criteria on prioritization in different intervention domains. This study did not aim to predict which diseases might be sensitive to climate change, but rather set out to identify the primary concerns (i.e. Varying the disease evaluations showed sensitivity of disease rankings to their evaluations. These five criteria were the existence of a vulnerable group, potential to increase social inequality, ability to infect the environment, optimization opportunities and reportable disease. Following the meeting, stakeholders were given an additional month to reflect on and validate the final list of criteria by means of two rounds of online Delphi review [38]. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). Concern over how to prioritize infectious diseases in a context of climate change is more recent and at the the time of the initial review, had been documented only in the prioritization exercise by Cox and colleagues (2013). The prioritization exercises referred to in this study pertain to planning of activities over a 1-5-year time scale while recognizing that these exercises may need to be updated and revisited within that time frame as knowledge evolves. Clavisi O, Bragge P, Tavender E, Turner T, Gruen RL. 2015-2020 Title V CCS Needs Assessment . The use of an initial literature review followed by a stakeholder consultation in our study allowed for the inclusion of a broad range of considerations which were factored into our prioritization models. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Conceptualization, 2017;81:10110. Reaching beyond the review of research evidence: a qualitative study of decision making during the development of clinical practice guidelines for disease prevention in healthcare. Yes No, Is the Subject Area "Public and occupational health" applicable to this article? To help us improve GOV.UK, wed like to know more about your visit today. The present study aimed to provide public preferences about health intervention allocation criteria for the optimal allocation of public health budget in Iran. The Research Group on Epidemiology of Zoonoses and Public Health (GREZOSP), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universit de Montral, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada, Stakeholder compiled concerns and literature identified criteria were compared and discussed. Ketola E, Toropainen E, Kaila M, Luoto R, Mkel M. Prioritizing guideline topics: development and evaluation of a practical tool. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, et al. In the context of climate change, there is increasing anticipated variability in the occurrence of infectious diseases, notably climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases. The desired effect direction of a criterion refers to what the desired state is with respect to that criterion. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The interventions included in these three domains range from the search for new treatments and diagnostic methods to education and outreach interventions as well as field interventions such as vector control or modifications to the built environment to help reduce the human health impact of infectious diseases. 2019 Oct 15;19(1):692. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4567-2. Universit Aube Nouvelle, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. For example, does society feel that resources should be prioritized for diseases that have more severe effects on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, very young, or pregnant women versus less severe diseases that affect a greater number of individuals? Purpose. Retained criteria were then used in a pilot prioritization exercise to examine differences in stakeholder assigned weights under different intervention domains. The consistency of weighting tendencies within stakeholder groups was not assessed in the current study given the small number of participants; however, given a larger sampling, the consistency of weighting trends within groups could be further examined. Springer Nature. Involvement of a diversity of participants (researchers, government, public health personnel, and non-technical citizens) in the criteria and preference elicitation process can help ensure that a broad set of value perspectives are considered. Out of the 33,339 citations identified through the electronic databases search, 10 papers met our inclusion criteria. To help you better understand how to use the framework, and the benefits of doing so, PHE has created an introductory video. The EHC Program has 5 domains with 18 criteria for the selection of topics for SRs/CERs. What have we learned from years of prioritization exercises? BMC Health Services Research AEH and RZM extracted the data. Keywords: Supervision, Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, et al. maximize this criterion; whereas with respect to the general level of knowledge of the public on a disease, the desired effect direction may be to prioritize diseases that the public has little knowledge of, i.e. This failure to prioritize effectively is due to many factors, including: an intrinsic difficulty in defining measurable criteria for the importance of disease in terms of public health; a lack of datain part because of insufficient research in this fieldfor quantifying or measuring these criteria; a mixture of criteria by which to prioritize,. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1995. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). An essential step in prioritizing efforts is to identify what considerations and concerns to take into account to guide decisions and thus set disease priorities. AEH wrote the first draft of the manuscript with EAA. For example, the criterion 'case-fatality rate in humans' might be estimated to be 30% for Japanese encephalitis [Reference Brookes 8]. 1= important 2 = very important 3 = extremely important Individuals Rate Problems/Issues Individually stakeholders apply the criteria using agreed upon scoring and weighting values Apply the criteria to the problem to determine the numeric score using a scale of 1 through 5 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190049.t002. The detailed search strategy is provided in Additionalfile2. In traditional multi-criteria type problems, incomparability can occur when one option performs better on certain criteria while another option performs better on very different criteria making comparison challenging [45,46]. In other words, what are the concerns, what is the state of knowledge around these concerns, what are options going forward and how do these options perform in light of stated concerns. Criteria from the Social Impact, Animal and Environmental Health as well as Economic categories were rarely among the top 5 weighted individual criterion for stakeholders, though these do appear among the top 5 for some stakeholders across each of the intervention domains. Mounesan L, Sayarifard A, Haghjou L, Ghadirian L, Rajabi F, Nedjat S. A manual for prioritizing the topics of clinical practice guidelines for family physicians. No, Is the Subject Area "Preventive medicine" applicable to this article? The review findings can assist clinicians, funders, policymakers, and other stakeholders seeking to develop health practice guidelines in prioritizing topics to be addressed. A systematic approach for undertaking a research priority-setting exercise. 2015;28:141-6. Direct resources to issues that have the . In addition, it is recommended that you hold 4 half-day workshops during the process. We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. PROMETHEE II was designed to overcome this incomparability without scale effects by calculating a net performance score over all criteria [45,46]. Ten of the original twelve stakeholders completed the criteria weighting exercise for each of the three intervention domains (research, surveillance or prevention and control). 2nd ed. Criteria categories are shown along the X axis with average weights by category shown along the Y axis. Writing review & editing, Affiliation 2014; Tran et al. This represented an opportunity to review the criteria, suggest refinements, avoid redundancy and propose new criteria. This section collates publications describing experiences and approaches in setting priorities for health research, interventions or diseases that can be used to draw lessons. Evidence synthesis; Health priority; Methodology; Priority setting; Research prioritization; Systematic review. We developed the search strategy with the help of an information specialist. Hunter DJ, Kieslich K, Littlejohns P, Staniszewska S, Tumilty E, Weale A, et al. An official website of the United States government. Commonly used prioritization criteria and their frequency were tracked across reviewed studies (see supplementary S1 Table). PLOS ONE promises fair, rigorous peer review, Priority setting in guideline development: article 2 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. While recognizing the need to outline the various prioritization approaches and highlight common themes, the aim of this study was to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines. While public health officials themselves do represent socially held values, their unique perspective may differ from that of society at large and effort should be made to examine where potential differences may exist. Unweighted uni-criterion analysis revealed criteria for which each of the assessed diseases ranked 1st at least once. Gopinathan U, Hoffman SJ. Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review. We identified 118 prioritization criteria; 68% of the criteria (80 out of 118) were either defined or categorized under specific domains. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. In this way, these exercises help structure reflection and guide decisions around resource allocation in order to ensure effectiveness within organisations and across various levels of government for effective public health delivery [22]. CMAJ. Accessibility 1. Here, a comprehensive review of the disease prioritization literature was conducted to create a synthesis list of the most commonly used prioritization criteria relevant in a context of climate change. Criteria and how they are used to evaluate diseases are at the crux of the disease prioritization process. Search strategy. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Writing review & editing, Affiliations While the inclusion of stakeholders from outside of public health is not yet routine in public health decision making, exercises have been conducted to assess the acceptability and ground feasibility of proposed interventions [33], as well as level of public awareness on a subject, such as the level of Lyme disease awareness in Canada [34], which may be useful in guiding future allocation of resources towards educational outreach activities. The current study solicited Quebec stakeholder perspectives and concerns for vector-borne diseases management under climate change. (2017) Criteria for the prioritization of public health interventions for climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases in Quebec. All of the identified prioritization approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics; none on prioritizing guideline recommendation questions or outcomes. This was the case for the weights given to the Public Health category for research (p = 0.011) and surveillance (p = 0.016) interventions as well as the weights given to the Risk and Epidemiology category for prevention and control (p = 0.035) and research (p = 0.035) interventions. 2014;186(3):E12342. Additionally, relevant peer reviewed and grey literature referenced by articles retained for data extraction were also included in the review if they met the original inclusion criteria (snowball sampling) [36]. FOIA Would you like email updates of new search results? Instead, it allows users to break down big decisions into smaller manageable pieces. An initial list of 122 criteria was extracted from these studies. PRIORITIZATION OF PROBLEMS Health Problem: Hypertension CRITERIA COMPUTATION ACTUAL SCORE JUSTIFICATION A. El-Harakeh, A., Morsi, R.Z., Fadlallah, R. et al. In MCDA, groups of people get together to decide what are the most important things to consider when deciding between options. Examining the impact of different prioritization methodologies on the resulting prioritized list of diseases is also an important issue to explore. No, PLOS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, #C2354500, based in San Francisco, California, US, Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190049. PubMedGoogle Scholar. In each map, the bold red line represents the group decision axis (i.e. PLoS ONE 12(12): Objective: Wed like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services. It should be noted that disease rankings are not driven by stakeholder weightings alone, but rather the combined evaluation of literature evidence with stakeholder weights. Our literature review suggests that common criteria and categories recur across studies [721]. Conceptual and practical links between health systems and health security are under-studied The need to address this gap gains relevance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic What are the new findings? All of the studies incorporated the use of prioritization criteria as an aspect of the prioritization approach. In disease prioritization exercises, criteria are used to systematically take into account concerns relevant to the decision-making context. For example, are diseases with high severity of greater concern than diseases with high incidence or vice versa? Priority setting should incorporate the values of various stakeholders while responding to a fundamental challenge faced by all health systems, the allocation of finite resources [6, 7]. 2017;17(1):344. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context. These concerns were translated into criteria and used to construct prioritization models to rank vector-borne diseases in the context of public health interventions pertaining to research, surveillance and, prevention and control. Atkins D, Perez-Padilla R, MacNee W, Buist AS, Cruz AA. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Stakeholders outside of public health, especially non-government stakeholders, offer more than just another view and opinion in this process. Here cross section of society refers not to the number of stakeholders engaged, but rather the diversity of organizations consulted. J Clin Epidemiol. 1. Of those 12, only 10 further completed the weighting exercise, once again due to time constraints. The difference in relative weights assigned to different categories were compared between the three intervention domains (research, surveillance and prevention and control) and Welchs t-test (unequal variances t-test) were performed in R (version 3.2.2) (R Core Team (2016), Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org) to test for significant differences in category weights. 8% (9 out of 118) were supplied with data sources. criteria) of a cross-section of society with regards to vector-borne disease management in these contexts. Limited resources and unlimited demands prevent health-care services to be provided to all those in need. and sharing of a child's health record, facilitating authorization, and reauthorization of services among The approach used in the current study offers an opportunity to identify concerns held by participating stakeholders and provides a method to examine the effect of these differences on disease rankings. 2019 Jun;55(3):322-330. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05787-3. 2022;46(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s42269-021-00687-8. Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines. 2018;3(5):e000716. Furthermore, these models were found to be equally applicable in three intervention contexts with associated stakeholder specific weights. Being alcoholic is not an easy task to correct at once. Changes in terms of the season of occurrence and the geographical distribution of these diseases are anticipated to increase as weather and climate are known to be drivers of the transmission and distribution of vector-borne diseases [4]. The funder was not involved in thestudy design, datacollection, analysis, and interpretation, or in writing the manuscript. Health Res Policy Syst. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. El-Jardali F, Fadlallah R, Bou Karroum L, Akl EA. Currently, one of the emerging application areas under public . The development of high-quality guidelines is a rigorous and complex process that requires an average of two tothree years per guideline [1]. : [7,23,24]; [22,48]; [8,10,27,49]) while other studies used similar concepts, with variations in wording. Background In Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. Dengue, Malaria, and Chikungunya virus were ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th in the research and surveillance domains with Malaria in 3rd and Dengue in 4th in prevention and control domain. Yang N, Zhao W, Qi WA, Yao C, Dong CY, Zhai ZG, Chen T, Liu EM, Li GB, Long YL, Wang XY, Wang ZJ, Lei RB, Zhou Q, Chen YL, Du L; TERM working group. We did not restrict the search to specific languages or dates. Prioritization matrices: Quickly surface basic disagreements, so disagreements can be resolved openly Health Res Policy Syst. While previous studies have contrasted public and expert rankings [28,29], the current study demonstrated a potential method for how to include these voices in the same consultation exercise in order to provide an opportunity for shared knowledge exchange and discussion of concerns between groups. Stakeholders pointing in the same direction as the group decision axis are most aligned with the group ranking. The online review was conducted using an electronic survey that presented all retained criteria from the in-person discussion and allowed stakeholders to vote for the inclusion of individual criteria. Dont worry we wont send you spam or share your email address with anyone. We reported the results in both narrative and tabular formats. statement and VH is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Ouranos Consortium for research in climatology and adaptation to climate change and the Strategic Training Program in Global Health Research, a partnership of CIHR and the Quebec Population Health Research Network (RRSPQ).
Places Like Blackberry Farm,
Washington State Auditor Salary,
Aspire Brewery Middletown, Ny,
4-7-8 Breathing Benefits,
Articles C