Resumen
To the editor: We read with great interest the results presented by Gilsdorf and Krause (2011) [1] of a survey to experts on the methodology used by Krause et al. (2008) [2] to prioritise 85 pathogens of public health importance. Their work deals with a very relevant subject, given current pressure on health budgets: the allocation of finite disease surveillance and control resources among competing alternatives, infectious diseases in this case. The authors correctly identify the evaluation as being multi-dimensional and compensatory. Unfortunately, they appear to have overlooked findings and principles of well-established methodologies for assessing the impact of multiple effects on non-tradable goods, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) [5]. It is within this perspective that we make our comments
| Idioma original | Inglés |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 1-2 |
| Publicación | Eurosurveillance |
| Volumen | 16 |
| N.º | 27 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Publicada - 7 jul. 2011 |
ODS de las Naciones Unidas
Este resultado contribuye a los siguientes Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
-
ODS 3: Salud y bienestar
Huella
Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Letter to the editor: Prioritization of infectious diseases in public health : feedback on the prioritisation methodology, 15 july 2008 to 15 january 2009'. En conjunto forman una huella única.Citar esto
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver