BackgroundAnogenital warts (AGWs) are a common, highly infectious disease caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), whose high recurrence rates contribute to direct medical costs, productivity loss and increased psychosocial impact. Because of the lack of a systematic review of the epidemiology of AGWs in the literature, this study reviewed the published medical literature on the incidence and prevalence of AGWs.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed on the worldwide incidence and prevalence of AGWs between 2001 and 2012 using the PubMed and EMBASE databases. An additional screening of abstracts from relevant sexual health and infectious disease conferences from 2009 to 2011 was also conducted. Only original studies with general adult populations (i.e., at least including ages 20 through 40 years) were included.ResultsThe overall (females and males combined) reported annual incidence of any AGWs (including new and recurrent) ranged from 160 to 289 per 100,000, with a median of 194.5 per 100,000. New AGW incidence rates among males ranged from 103 to 168 per 100,000, with a median of 137 per 100,000 and among females from 76 to 191 per 100,000, with a median of 120.5 per 100,000 per annum. The reported incidence of recurrent AGWs was as high as 110 per 100,000 among females and 163 per 100,000 among males. Incidence peaked before 24 years of age in females and between 25 and 29 years of age among males. The overall prevalence of AGWs based on retrospective administrative databases or medical chart reviews or prospectively collected physician reports ranged from 0.13% to 0.56%, whereas it ranged from 0.2% to 5.1% based on genital examinations.ConclusionsThe literature suggests that AGWs are widespread and the prevalence depends on study methodology as suggested by higher rates reported from routine genital examinations versus those from treatment records. However, there remains a need for more population-based studies from certain regions including Africa, Latin America and Southern Asia to further elucidate the global epidemiology of this disease.

Background: Healthcare decisionmaking is a complex process relying on disparate types of evidence and value judgments. Our objectives for this study were to develop a practical framework to facilitate decisionmaking in terms of supporting the deliberative process, providing access to evidence, and enhancing the communication of decisions.

No abstract

ObjectivesResource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking.MethodAn extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured.ResultsOut of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16).ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.

This proof-of-concept study demonstrated the usefulness of incorporating MCDA in HTA to support transparent and systematic appraisal of health care interventions. Further research is needed to advance MCDA-based approaches to more effective healthcare decision making.