IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i9p1783-1795.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insight into “Calculated Risk”: An Application to the Prioritization of Emerging Infectious Diseases for Blood Transfusion Safety

Author

Listed:
  • R. E. J. Neslo
  • W. Oei
  • M. P. Janssen

Abstract

Increasing identification of transmissions of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) by blood transfusion raised the question which of these EIDs poses the highest risk to blood safety. For a number of the EIDs that are perceived to be a threat to blood safety, evidence on actual disease or transmission characteristics is lacking, which might render measures against such EIDs disputable. On the other hand, the fact that we call them “emerging” implies almost by definition that we are uncertain about at least some of their characteristics. So what is the relative importance of various disease and transmission characteristics, and how are these influenced by the degree of uncertainty associated with their actual values? We identified the likelihood of transmission by blood transfusion, the presence of an asymptomatic phase of infection, prevalence of infection, and the disease impact as the main characteristics of the perceived risk of disease transmission by blood transfusion. A group of experts in the field of infectious diseases and blood transfusion ranked sets of (hypothetical) diseases with varying degrees of uncertainty associated with their disease characteristics, and used probabilistic inversion to obtain probability distributions for the weight of each of these risk characteristics. These distribution weights can be used to rank both existing and newly emerging infectious diseases with (partially) known characteristics. Analyses show that in case there is a lack of data concerning disease characteristics, it is the uncertainty concerning the asymptomatic phase and the disease impact that are the most important drivers of the perceived risk. On the other hand, if disease characteristics are well established, it is the prevalence of infection and the transmissibility of the disease by blood transfusion that will drive the perceived risk. The risk prioritization model derived provides an easy to obtain and rational expert assessment of the relative importance of an (emerging) infectious disease, requiring only a limited amount of information. Such a model might be used to justify a rational and proportional response to an emerging infectious disease, especially in situations where little or no specific information is available.

Suggested Citation

  • R. E. J. Neslo & W. Oei & M. P. Janssen, 2017. "Insight into “Calculated Risk”: An Application to the Prioritization of Emerging Infectious Diseases for Blood Transfusion Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(9), pages 1783-1795, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1783-1795
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12752
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12752?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernd Kraan & Tim Bedford, 2005. "Probabilistic Inversion of Expert Judgments in the Quantification of Model Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 995-1006, June.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    4. Du, C. & Kurowicka, D. & Cooke, R.M., 2006. "Techniques for generic probabilistic inversion," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 1164-1187, March.
    5. R. E. J. Neslo & R. M. Cooke, 2011. "Modeling and validating stakeholder preferences with probabilistic inversion," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 115-130, March.
    6. Dorota Kurowicka & Catalin Bucura & Roger Cooke & Arie Havelaar, 2010. "Probabilistic Inversion in Priority Setting of Emerging Zoonoses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 715-723, May.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    3. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    4. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    5. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    8. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    9. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    10. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    11. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    12. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    13. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Mark Morrison & Craig Nalder, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Quality of Electricity Supply Across Business Type and Location," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(2), pages 117-134, April.
    15. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    16. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    18. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    19. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    20. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:9:p:1783-1795. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.