Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis

Sampietro-Colom, Laura; Espallargues, Mireia; Rodríguez, Eva; Comas, Mercè; Alonso, Jordi; Castells, Xavier; Pinto, José Luı̀s

doi:10.1177/0272989x08315235

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main weaknesses are that a certain amount of agreement must already exist in participating members and the amount of time necessary to prepare and execute the technique in each focus group. The method described in this paper has been used to develop criteria for consideration in other health care studies [24], [25], [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Stakeholder-Informed Approach to the Identification of Criteria for the Prioritization of Zoonoses in Canada

Sargeant

2012

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundZoonotic diseases account for over 60% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans and 75% of recently emerging infectious diseases. As limited resources are available for the control and prevention of zoonotic diseases, it is necessary to prioritize diseases in order to direct resources into those with the greatest needs. The selection of criteria for prioritization has traditionally been on the basis of expert opinion; however, details of the methods used to identify criteria from expert opinion often are not published and a full range of criteria may not be captured by expert opinion.Methodology/Principal FindingsThis study used six focus groups to identify criteria for the prioritization of zoonotic diseases in Canada. Focus groups included people from the public, animal health professionals and human health professionals. A total of 59 criteria were identified for prioritizing zoonotic diseases. Human-related criteria accounted for the highest proportion of criteria identified (55%), followed by animal-related criteria (26%) then pathogen/disease-related criteria (19%).Similarities and differences were observed in the identification and scoring of criteria for disease prioritization between groups; the public groups were strongly influenced by the individual-level of disease burden, the responsibility of the scientific community in disease prioritization and the experiences of recent events while the professional groups were influenced by the societal- and population-level of disease burden and political and public pressure.Conclusions/SignificanceThis was the first study to describe a mixed semi-quantitative and qualitative approach to deriving criteria for disease prioritization. This was also the first study to involve the opinion of the general public regarding disease prioritization. The number of criteria identified highlights the difficulty in prioritizing zoonotic diseases. The method presented in this paper has formulated a comprehensive list of criteria that can be used to inform future disease prioritization studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Stakeholder-Informed Approach to the Identification of Criteria for the Prioritization of Zoonoses in Canada

Sargeant

2012

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It could also be argued that this tool does not include patients' views when deciding on weights. Previous literature (20) has shown that patients tend to give more weight to those criteria that have a close relation with patient-related issues (e.g., pain). Because the weight attributed to patient-related aspects is already high in our study, we understand this limitation has been minimized here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Test of a Decision Support Tool for Hospital Health Technology Assessment

Sampietro-Colom¹,

Morilla-Bachs

Gutiérrez-Moreno

et al. 2012

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To develop and test a decision-support tool for prioritizing new competing Health Technologies (HTs) after their assessment using the mini-HTA approach. Methods: A two layer value/risk tool was developed based on the mini-HTA. The first layer included 12 mini-HTA variables classified in two dimensions, namely value (safety, clinical benefit, patient impact, cost-effectiveness, quality of the evidence, innovativeness) and risk (staff, space and process of care impacts, incremental costs, net cost, investment effort). Weights given to these variables were obtained from a survey among decision-makers (at National/Regional level and hospital settings). A second layer included results from mini-HTA (scored as higher, equal or lower), which compares the performance of the new HT (in terms of the abovementioned 12 variables) with the available comparator. An algorithm combining the first (weights) and second (scores) layers was developed to obtain an overall score for each HT, which was then plotted in a value/risk matrix. The tool was tested using results from the mini-HTAs for three new HTs (Surgical Robot, Platelet Rich Plasma, Deep Brain Stimulation). Results: No significant differences among decision-makers were observed as regards the weights given to the 12 variables, therefore, the median aggregate weights from decision-makers were introduced in the first layer. The dot plot resulting from the mini-HTA presented good power to visually discriminate between the assessed HTs. Conclusion: The decision-support tool developed here makes possible a robust and straightforward comparison of different competing HTs. This facilitates hospital decision-makers deliberations on the prioritization of competing investments under fixed budgets.

show abstract

“…More recently, this method has gained widespread use in the health and medical setting in eliciting preferences for healthcare [21]–[23]. The theory behind CA is that any product (goods or services) can be described by a set of characteristics and the extent to which an individual places value on a product is determined by the level of those separate characteristics (part-worth of the product) and the combination of those characteristics (overall worth of the product) [21], [22], [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Quantitative and Novel Approach to the Prioritization of Zoonotic Diseases in North America: A Public Perspective

Sargeant

2012

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundZoonoses account for over half of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans. As there are limited resources available for the control and prevention of zoonotic diseases, a framework for their prioritization is necessary to ensure resources are directed into those of highest importance. Although zoonotic outbreaks are a significant burden of disease in North America, the systematic prioritization of zoonoses in this region has not been previously evaluated.Methodology/Principal FindingsThis study describes the novel use of a well-established quantitative method, conjoint analysis (CA), to identify the relative importance of 21 key characteristics of zoonotic diseases that can be used for their prioritization in Canada and the US. Relative importance weights from the CA were used to develop a point-scoring system to derive a recommended list of zoonoses for prioritization in Canada and the US. Over 1,500 participants from the general public were recruited to complete the online survey (761 from Canada and 778 from the US). Hierarchical Bayes models were fitted to the survey data to derive CA-weighted scores. Scores were applied to 62 zoonotic diseases of public health importance in Canada and the US to rank diseases in order of priority.Conclusions/SignificanceThis was the first study to describe a systematic and quantitative approach to the prioritization of zoonoses in North America involving public participants. We found individuals with no prior knowledge or experience in prioritizing zoonoses were capable of producing meaningful results using CA as a novel quantitative approach to prioritization. More similarities than differences were observed between countries suggesting general agreement in disease prioritization between Canadians and Americans. We demonstrate CA as a potential tool for the prioritization of zoonoses; other prioritization exercises may also consider this approach.

show abstract

Wide Social Participation in Prioritizing Patients on Waiting Lists for Joint Replacement: A Conjoint Analysis

Cited by 31 publications

References 38 publications

A Stakeholder-Informed Approach to the Identification of Criteria for the Prioritization of Zoonoses in Canada

A Stakeholder-Informed Approach to the Identification of Criteria for the Prioritization of Zoonoses in Canada

Development and Test of a Decision Support Tool for Hospital Health Technology Assessment

A Quantitative and Novel Approach to the Prioritization of Zoonotic Diseases in North America: A Public Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About