Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493347›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2022

A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization.

Jiawei Zhao, Tiffany Smith, Melissa Lavigne, Cécile Aenishaenslin, Ruth Cox, Aamir Fazil, Ana Johnson, Javier Sanchez, Benoit Hermant

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Prioritisation of infectious diseases from a public health perspective: a multi-criteria decision analysis study, France, 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiawei ZhaoRisk and Capability Assessment Unit, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Tiffany SmithRisk and Capability Assessment Unit, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Melissa LavigneRisk and Capability Assessment Unit, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Cécile AenishaenslinDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ruth CoxDepartment of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada.
Aamir FazilNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ana JohnsonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Javier SanchezDepartment of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada.
Benoit HermantRisk and Capability Assessment Unit, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Public Health Agency of Canada · CAUniversity of Prince Edward Island · CAQueen's University · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a decision support tool that can be used in public health emergency management. The use of a One Health lens in MCDA can support the prioritization of threats and interventions which cut across the human, animal, and environmental domains. Previous literature reviews have focused on creating a snapshot of MCDA methodological trends. Our study provides an update to the MCDA methods literature with key considerations from a One Health perspective and addresses the application of MCDA in an all-hazards decision-making context. Methods: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, the CAB database, and a limited online gray literature search in partnership with a librarian from Health Canada. Articles were limited to those published in the year 2010 or later in a high-income setting (OECD member countries). Results: Sixty-two articles were included for synthesis. Of these articles, most were Canadian studies (20%); and prioritized health risks, threats, and interventions in the human domain (69%). Six commonly used prioritization criteria were identified: threat, health, intervention, strategic, social, and economic impact. Stakeholders were engaged in 85% of studies and commonly consisted of government groups, non-governmental groups, subject matter experts, and the public. While most articles (65%) included elements of One Health based on our definition, only 5 studies (9%) explicitly acknowledged One Health as a guiding principle for the study. Forty seven percentage of studies noted that MCDA was beneficial in supporting the decision-making process. Conclusion: Current literature on health prioritization presents some variability in the depth of integration of the One Health framework and on the use of various MCDA methodologies given prioritization objectives. Studies which applied a comprehensive One Health approach, prioritized disparate threats, or conducted cyclical prioritizations for governing bodies were broad in scope, but sparse. The results of our review indicate the need for better guidance on the integration of a One Health approach and the use of various MCDA methods given the main prioritization objectives.

Indexed as

One HealthAnimalsCanadaDecision Support Techniquesall-hazardsdecision supportMCDAmulti-criteria decision analysisOne Healthprioritizationpublic healthrapid review

Identifiers

PMID35493347
PMCPMC9051240
OpenAlexW4224110118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.