IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighting of Criteria for Disease Prioritization Using Conjoint Analysis and Based on Health Professional and Student Opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Nadine Stebler
  • Gertraud Schuepbach-Regula
  • Peter Braam
  • Laura Cristina Falzon

Abstract

Disease prioritization exercises have been used by several organizations to inform surveillance and control measures. Though most methodologies for disease prioritization are based on expert opinion, it is becoming more common to include different stakeholders in the prioritization exercise. This study was performed to compare the weighting of disease criteria, and the consequent prioritization of zoonoses, by both health professionals and students in Switzerland using a Conjoint Analysis questionnaire. The health professionals comprised public health and food safety experts, cantonal physicians and cantonal veterinarians, while the student group comprised first-year veterinary and agronomy students. Eight criteria were selected for this prioritization based on expert elicitation and literature review. These criteria, described on a 3-tiered scale, were evaluated through a choice-based Conjoint Analysis questionnaire with 25 choice tasks. Questionnaire results were analyzed to obtain importance scores (for each criterion) and mean utility values (for each criterion level), and the latter were then used to rank 16 zoonoses. While the most important criterion for both groups was “Severity of the disease in humans”, the second ranked criteria by the health professionals and students were “Economy” and “Treatment in humans”, respectively. Regarding the criterion “Control and Prevention”, health professionals tended to prioritize a disease when the control and preventive measures were described to be 95% effective, while students prioritized a disease if there were almost no control and preventive measures available. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy was the top-ranked disease by both groups. Health professionals and students agreed on the weighting of certain criteria such as “Severity” and “Treatment of disease in humans”, but disagreed on others such as “Economy” or “Control and Prevention”. Nonetheless, the overall disease ranking lists were similar, and these may be taken into consideration when making future decisions regarding resource allocation for disease control and prevention in Switzerland.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadine Stebler & Gertraud Schuepbach-Regula & Peter Braam & Laura Cristina Falzon, 2016. "Weighting of Criteria for Disease Prioritization Using Conjoint Analysis and Based on Health Professional and Student Opinion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151394
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151394
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151394&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.