ArticleZoonoses and public health2016
Prioritizing Zoonotic Diseases: Differences in Perspectives Between Human and Animal Health Professionals in North America.
Article in Zoonoses and public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Prioritization of zoonoses for health professional knowledge building in Canada.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Prioritization of zoonoses of wildlife origin for multisectoral one health collaboration in Guyana, 2022.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000-2021: a structured scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Prioritizing zoonotic diseases utilizing the One Health approach: Jordan's experience.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Convergence model for effectual prevention and control of zoonotic diseases: a health system study on 'One Health' approach in Ahmedabad, India.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Establishing research priorities to improve the One Health efficacy of Australian general practitioners and veterinarians with regard to zoonoses: A modified Delphi survey.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- World Health Organization Methodology to Prioritize Emerging Infectious Diseases in Need of Research and Development.Emerging infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Prioritizing Zoonoses for Global Health Capacity Building-Themes from One Health Zoonotic Disease Workshops in 7 Countries, 2014-2016.Emerging infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- Quantifying Preferences of Farmers and Veterinarians for National Animal Health Programs: The Example of Bovine Mastitis and Antimicrobial Usage in Switzerland.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zoonoses pose a significant burden of illness in North America. Zoonoses represent an additional threat to public health because the natural reservoirs are often animals, particularly wildlife, thus eluding control efforts such as quarantine, vaccination and social distancing. As there are limited resources available, it is necessary to prioritize diseases in order to allocate resources to those posing the greatest public health threat. Many studies have attempted to prioritize zoonoses, but challenges exist. This study uses a quantitative approach, conjoint analysis (CA), to overcome some limitations of traditional disease prioritization exercises. We used CA to conduct a zoonoses prioritization study involving a range of human and animal health professionals across North America; these included epidemiologists, public health practitioners, research scientists, physicians, veterinarians, laboratory technicians and nurses. A total of 699 human health professionals (HHP) and 585 animal health professionals (AHP) participated in this study. We used CA to prioritize 62 zoonotic diseases using 21 criteria. Our findings suggest CA can be used to produce reasonable criteria scores for disease prioritization. The fitted models were satisfactory for both groups with a slightly better fit for AHP compared to HHP (84.4% certainty fit versus 83.6%). Human-related criteria were more influential for HHP in their decision to prioritize zoonoses, while animal-related criteria were more influential for AHP resulting in different disease priority lists. While the differences were not statistically significant, a difference of one or two ranks could be considered important for some individuals. A potential solution to address the varying opinions is discussed. The scientific framework for disease prioritization presented can be revised on a regular basis by updating disease criteria to reflect diseases as they evolve over time; such a framework is of value allowing diseases of highest impact to be identified routinely for resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.