Authors’ reply: Prioritisation of infectious diseases in public health: feedback on the prioritisation methodology, 15 July 2008 to 15 January 2009

摘要

We are aware that some of the criteria are not exclu- sive and interdependent on each other. That was partly changed in the new round, but as we consider the crite- ria ,,incidence“, as a very relevant criteria, we decided to score some other criteria based on their effect on the population and not the individual, taking incidence again in account. The majority of participants consid- ered a three tiered criteria scoring as sufficient, and it is challenging enough to define three scores for each criteria and often estimation is needed for the scoring. The use of a 0-100 scale would suggest a precision, that is often not reflected in reality. As mentioned in our article, there was ambiguity in some score descrip- tions. In the new round we tried to give clearer guid- ance on how to score in this situation. We were also aware that the categorical scoring of weights was not optimal and changed that in the new round. And we have defined a five year time period for the recent prioritisation, acknowledging the need for such a time frame.