Facilitating the Decision‐Making Process After a Nuclear Accident: Case Studies in the Netherlands and Slovakia

Asselt, E.D. van; Twenhöfel, C.; Duranova, T.; Smetsers, R.C.G.M.; Bohunova, J.; Müller, Tim

doi:10.1002/ieam.4375

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The values for quantitative criteria such as waste amount, number of workers needed and avoided doses could be quantified directly by the JRODOS DSS. The values for the qualitative criteria, as for example "Willingness of population to cooperate on strategy implementation", have to be estimated and agreed within the group and are more subjective (more details in van Asselt et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MCDA stakeholder workshops

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the CONFIDENCE project, comprehensive methods have been developed for better support of decision making under uncertain conditions, mainly by use of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). While MCDA in general was available for use in the radiological crisis management community, no method of analysing uncertain conditions and supporting robust decision making under these conditions was available. During the CONFIDENCE project, the existing MCDA tool was improved and enhanced to deal with these requirements. For providing solid and reliable decision support for such a situation as a radiological emergency, the evaluation of decision-support tools by the stakeholders and their feedback is important, especially when considering their heterogeneous background caused by e.g. living in different countries. Therefore, several stakeholder panels in different countries were organized to include the end users’ opinions and to assure the usability of the final tool.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MCDA stakeholder workshops

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To inform government end users regularly, cyclical prioritization methods must be flexible enough to accommodate shifts in key MCDA components such as criteria used or stakeholder composition. An example of how to achieve this balance is the development of a user-friendly tool that is value-based, has a small set of core criteria, and is adaptable for multiple, diverse scenarios like the ones described in papers by Saito et al (50) or Asselt et al (17).…”

Section: Cyclical Prioritization Entailed Unique Methods Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Questionnaires were also designed such that minimal prior knowledge of specialized topics was required (13). User-friendly interfaces for criteria scoring (14), data synthesis (15), and data exploration (16,17) were also noted as helpful in improving the effectiveness of the stakeholder engagement process (18).…”

Section: Stakeholder Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization

Zhao

Smith

Lavigne

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMulti-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a decision support tool that can be used in public health emergency management. The use of a One Health lens in MCDA can support the prioritization of threats and interventions which cut across the human, animal, and environmental domains. Previous literature reviews have focused on creating a snapshot of MCDA methodological trends. Our study provides an update to the MCDA methods literature with key considerations from a One Health perspective and addresses the application of MCDA in an all-hazards decision-making context.MethodsWe conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, the CAB database, and a limited online gray literature search in partnership with a librarian from Health Canada. Articles were limited to those published in the year 2010 or later in a high-income setting (OECD member countries).ResultsSixty-two articles were included for synthesis. Of these articles, most were Canadian studies (20%); and prioritized health risks, threats, and interventions in the human domain (69%). Six commonly used prioritization criteria were identified: threat, health, intervention, strategic, social, and economic impact. Stakeholders were engaged in 85% of studies and commonly consisted of government groups, non-governmental groups, subject matter experts, and the public. While most articles (65%) included elements of One Health based on our definition, only 5 studies (9%) explicitly acknowledged One Health as a guiding principle for the study. Forty seven percentage of studies noted that MCDA was beneficial in supporting the decision-making process.ConclusionCurrent literature on health prioritization presents some variability in the depth of integration of the One Health framework and on the use of various MCDA methodologies given prioritization objectives. Studies which applied a comprehensive One Health approach, prioritized disparate threats, or conducted cyclical prioritizations for governing bodies were broad in scope, but sparse. The results of our review indicate the need for better guidance on the integration of a One Health approach and the use of various MCDA methods given the main prioritization objectives.

show abstract