Basic Priority Rating Model 2.0: Current Applications for Priority Setting in Health Promotion Practice

Neiger, Brad L.; Thackeray, Rosemary; Fagen, Michael C.

doi:10.1177/1524839910393281

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prioritization of limited resources across competing demands presents an " economic challenge and a political puzzle" [65], but is a vital element of systematic planning in public health [66]. While some health care planners utilize multiple evidence sources (both qualitative and quantitative) for the purposes of priority setting [67], stakeholder engagement in policy often is limited to nominal groups or consensus-based approaches (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

Bridges

Gallego

Kudo

et al. 2011

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLiver cancer is both common and burdensome in Asia. Effective liver cancer control, however, is hindered by a complex etiology and a lack of coordination across clinical disciplines. We sought to identify strategies for inclusion in a comprehensive liver cancer control for Asia and to compare qualitative and quantitative methods for prioritization.MethodsQualitative interviews (N = 20) with international liver cancer experts were used to identify strategies using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and to formulate an initial prioritization through frequency analysis. Conjoint analysis, a quantitative stated-preference method, was then applied among Asian liver cancer experts (N = 20) who completed 12 choice tasks that divided these strategies into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets. Respondents' preferred plan was the primary outcome in a choice model, estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression. Priorities were then compared using Spearman's Rho.ResultsEleven strategies were identified: Access to treatments; Centers of excellence; Clinical education; Measuring social burden; Monitoring of at-risk populations; Multidisciplinary management; National guidelines; Public awareness; Research infrastructure; Risk-assessment and referral; and Transplantation infrastructure. Qualitative frequency analysis indicated that Risk-assessment and referral (85%), National guidelines (80%) and Monitoring of at-risk populations (80%) received the highest priority, while conjoint analysis pointed to Monitoring of at-risk populations (p < 0.001), Centers of excellence (p = 0.002), and Access to treatments (p = 0.004) as priorities, while Risk-assessment and referral was the lowest priority (p = 0.645). We find moderate concordance between the qualitative and quantitative methods (rho = 0.20), albeit insignificant (p = 0.554), and a strong concordance between the OLS and logistic regressions (rho = 0.979; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsIdentified strategies can be conceptualized as the ABCs of comprehensive liver cancer control as they focus on Antecedents, Better care and Connections within a national strategy. Some concordance was found between the qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g. Monitoring of at-risk populations), but substantial differences were also identified (e.g. qualitative methods gave highest priority to risk-assessment and referral, but it was the lowest for the quantitative methods), which may be attributed to differences between the methods and study populations, and potential framing effects in choice tasks. Continued research will provide more generalizable estimates of priorities and account for variation across stakeholders and countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

Bridges

Gallego

Kudo

et al. 2011

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neiger and colleagues (1) made a significant contribution to the Hanlon method by deleting the PEARL component:…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier versions of the BPR model suggested that analysis of the PEARL criterion should occur after all data had been collected and translated to BPR scores. Since the function of PEARL is to determine whether stakeholders should proceed with or eliminate a health problem, this criterion should be analyzed prior to data collection and analysis (1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Pan American Health Organization-adapted Hanlon method for prioritization of health programs

Choi

Maza²,

Mújica³

et al. 2019

Revista Panamericana De Salud Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. To document the underlying science of how the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) adapted the Hanlon method, which prioritizes disease control programs, to its wider range of program areas and used it to implement the PAHO Strategic Plan 2014 – 2019. Methods. In 2014, PAHO established a Strategic Plan Advisory Group (SPAG) with representatives from 12 Member States to work closely with the PAHO Technical Team to adapt the Hanlon method to disease and non-disease control programs. Three meetings were held in 2015 – 2016 during which SPAG reviewed existing priority-setting methods, assessed the original Hanlon method and subsequent revisions, and developed the adapted method. This project was initiated by Member States, facilitated by PAHO, and conducted jointly in transparent and horizontal technical cooperation. Results. From the original Hanlon equation, the PAHO-adapted method maintains components A (size of problem), B (seriousness of problem), and C (effectiveness of intervention), drops component D (PEARL – Propriety, Economics, Acceptability, Resources, and Legality), and adds component E (inequity) and F (institutional positioning). The PEARL score was dropped because it serves a purpose for pre-screening process, but not in the priority-setting process for PAHO. Conclusions. The PAHO-adapted Hanlon method provides a refined approach for prioritizing public health programs that include disease and non-disease control areas. The method may be useful for the World Health Organization and country governments with similar needs.

show abstract

“…In the U.S., an estimated 64% of cancer survivors live for more than five years after their diagnosis [33], and this usually requires continual monitoring with regard to recurrence and long-term care for the late effects of cancer [11,33], issues that must be addressed when developing of cancer control policies. Therefore, counting the potential savings with regard to loss-of-QALE, costs of lifetime healthcare and long term care, and productivity loss for society [34] when estimating the total health impact would be more comprehensive and efficient than considering the standardized mortality rate or CIR alone, and it would be better if future decisions cancer prevention policies would take all these potential impacts into consideration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of expected health impacts for major cancers: Integration of incidence rate and loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy

Hung

Lai

Chen

et al. 2015

Cancer Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Basic Priority Rating Model 2.0: Current Applications for Priority Setting in Health Promotion Practice

Cited by 11 publications

References 2 publications

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

The Pan American Health Organization-adapted Hanlon method for prioritization of health programs

Comparison of expected health impacts for major cancers: Integration of incidence rate and loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About