A quantitative approach to the prioritization of zoonotic diseases in North America: a health professionals' perspective.
<h4>Background</h4>Currently, zoonoses account for 58% to 61% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans globally and up to 75% of emerging human pathogens. Although the impact of zoonoses on animal health and public health in North America is significant, there has been no p...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/a5ac3e91a9954860a727c0fabd2d7c39 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Background</h4>Currently, zoonoses account for 58% to 61% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans globally and up to 75% of emerging human pathogens. Although the impact of zoonoses on animal health and public health in North America is significant, there has been no published research involving health professionals on the prioritization of zoonoses in this region.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We used conjoint analysis (CA), a well-established quantitative method in market research, to identify the relative importance of 21 key characteristics of zoonotic diseases 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. Study participants with a background in epidemiology, public health, medical sciences, veterinary sciences and infectious disease research were recruited to complete the online survey (707 from Canada and 764 from the US). Hierarchical Bayes models were fitted to the survey data to derive CA-weighted scores for disease criteria. Scores were applied to 62 zoonotic diseases to rank diseases in order of priority.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>We present the first zoonoses prioritization exercise involving health professionals in North America. Our previous study indicated individuals with no prior knowledge in infectious diseases were capable of producing meaningful results with acceptable model fits (79.4%). This study suggests health professionals with some knowledge in infectious diseases were capable of producing meaningful results with better-fitted models than the general public (83.7% and 84.2%). Despite more similarities in demographics and model fit between the combined public and combined professional groups, there was more uniformity across priority lists between the Canadian public and Canadian professionals and between the US public and US professionals. Our study suggests that CA can be used as a potential tool for the prioritization of zoonoses. |
|---|