Fig 1.
Flow chart of steps conducted to create disease prioritization models.
Table 1.
Article selection process for review.
Table 2.
Summary of reviewed disease prioritization studies.
Table 3.
Stakeholder validated list of criteria for the prioritization of climate sensitive vector-borne diseases.
Fig 2.
Criteria category weight average comparison by intervention domain.
The span of stakeholder weights is indicated by the vertical lines with shaped makers indicating the intervention specific group means. Criteria categories are shown along the X axis with average weights by category shown along the Y axis. The differences between the weights given to each intervention domain (research, surveillance and prevention & control) were not found to be significantly different for any of the categories. Criteria category Legend (X axis): PHC: Public Health Criteria; SIC: Social Impact Criteria; REC: Risk and Epidemiology Criteria; AEC: Animal and Environmental Health Criteria; ECC: Economic Criteria; SOC: Strategic and Operational Criteria.
Fig 3.
Individual weights by criteria and intervention domain.
Each line in the graph represents each of the 10 Individual stakeholder’s (S1-S10) weight assignments on all 21 criteria. The relative importance of criteria within each category is seen to vary depending on the intervention domain. For example: the “SOC-03-level of knowledge” criterion received the most weight in the research domain, while the “SOC-01-capacity to detect disease” criterion received the most weight in the surveillance domain. The “SOC-02-Existence of treatment” received the most weight in the prevention and control domain.
Fig 4.
GAIA decision map for all intervention domains.
Panel A) shows the GAIA map for the research domain, B) shows the surveillance domain and C) the prevention and control domain. In each map, the bold red line represents the group decision axis (i.e. consensus ranking) with the filled circle pointing in the direction of the group ranking. Square markers represent the ranking of the different diseases in k-dimensional space (where k represents the number of criteria) projected onto a 2-dimensional plane. Diseases closest to the group decision axis are prioritized over diseases further away from the decision axis. Stakeholders 1 through 10 are represented by the blue circular markers labelled S1-S10. Stakeholders pointing in the same direction as the group decision axis are most aligned with the group ranking. Stakeholders further away in space from each other and from the group decision axis have more disparate weighting tendencies and hence perspectives. For example, in panel A) S8 shows distinct weight position as compared with the rest of the stakeholders and therefore indicates a different set of values in this context as compared with the rest of the group. Clusters of stakeholders can also be observed occurring in each of the panels and indicate stakeholders with more similar weightings (i.e. perspectives). For example, in panel B) weights by stakeholders S2 and S6 are more similar to each other than to stakeholders S1 and S8.
Table 4.
Pilot prioritization of diseases for the group and by stakeholder for each intervention domain.
Table 5.
Disease evaluation matrix.
Table 6.
Weight stability intervals in descending order from sensitivity analysis of all stakeholders for the research domain.