MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776521282 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190049

Criteria for the prioritization of public health interventions for climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases in Quebec

2017· article· en· W2776521282 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valérie Hongoh, Pierre Gosselin, Pascal Michel, André Ravel, Jean‐Philippe Waaub, Céline Campagna, Karim Samoura

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversité du Québec à MontréalCegep de Saint HyacintheHEC MontréalPublic Health Agency of CanadaOuranosInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Development Research CentrePublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPrioritizationStakeholderContext (archaeology)Public healthWeightingPsychological interventionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineEnvironmental planningBusinessGeographyProcess managementPolitical sciencePublic relationsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prioritizing resources for optimal responses to an ever growing list of existing and emerging infectious diseases represents an important challenge to public health. In the context of climate change, there is increasing anticipated variability in the occurrence of infectious diseases, notably climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases. An essential step in prioritizing efforts is to identify what considerations and concerns to take into account to guide decisions and thus set disease priorities. This study was designed to perform a comprehensive review of criteria for vector-borne disease prioritization, assess their applicability in a context of climate change with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders in order to produce a baseline list of considerations to use in this decision-making context. Differences in stakeholder choices were examined with regards to prioritization of these criteria for research, surveillance and disease prevention and control objectives. A preliminary list of criteria was identified following a review of the literature. Discussions with stakeholders were held to consolidate and validate this list of criteria and examine their effects on disease prioritization. After this validation phase, a total of 21 criteria were retained. A pilot vector-borne disease prioritization exercise was conducted using PROMETHEE to examine the effects of the retained criteria on prioritization in different intervention domains. Overall, concerns expressed by stakeholders for prioritization were well aligned with categories of criteria identified in previous prioritization studies. Weighting by category was consistent between stakeholders overall, though some significant differences were found between public health and non-public health stakeholders. From this exercise, a general model for climate-sensitive vector-borne disease prioritization has been developed that can be used as a starting point for further public health prioritization exercises relating to research, surveillance, and prevention and control interventions in a context of climate change. Multi-stakeholder engagement in prioritization can help broaden the range of criteria taken into account, offer opportunities for early identification of potential challenges and may facilitate acceptability of any resulting decisions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207