Skip to main content

Table 1 Relative importance (Odds ratios) of criteria by perspective

From: The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions

  

Perspectives (Odds ratios)

Criteria

Levels

Policy makers

Health professions

General population

Type of intervention

Prevention for non-communicable diseases

   
 

Prevention for communicable diseases

**

2.50*

1.56*

 

Treatment for non-communicable diseases

**

1.22

1.13

 

Treatment for communicable diseases

**

1.88

1.41

Target group of intervention

Elderly

   
 

Adult

3.71*

3.93*

2.40*

 

Children

5.13*

2.92*

2.45*

Severity of disease

Not severe

   
 

Moderate severe

6.29*

4.24*

2.48*

 

Severe

43.42*

6.00

2.06*

Number of beneficiaries

Few

   
 

Many

19.97*

8.64*

2.80*

Value for money

High cost but low effectiveness

   
 

High cost and high effectiveness

48.91*

23.27*

9.35*

 

Low cost and low effectiveness

1.35*

2.28*

1.51*

 

Low Cost but high effectiveness

31.60*

27.97*

12.96*

Budget impact

High budget impact

   
 

Low budget impact

9.91*

4.43*

4.25*

Log likelihood

 

-199.5608

-637.7022

-2301.6025

Pseudo R2

 

0.5065

0.3341

0.2055

  1. *Significant variables (p < 0.05)
  2. **Removed variable
  3. Note: 1 The odds ratios were overestimated because of the small sample size of policy makers. However, there was no any relevance for the interpretation of the results.
  4. 2 The group of policy makers expressed higher preference on the high cost and highly effective interventions rather than the low cost with highly effective ones. The explanation of this is reported elsewhere.