Communicable Diseases Prioritized for Surveillance and Epidemiological Research: Results of a Standardized Prioritization Procedure in Germany, 2011

Introduction To establish strategic priorities for the German national public health institute (RKI) and guide the institute's mid-term strategic decisions, we prioritized infectious pathogens in accordance with their importance for national surveillance and epidemiological research. Methods We used the Delphi process with internal (RKI) and external experts and a metric-consensus approach to score pathogens according to ten three-tiered criteria. Additional experts were invited to weight each criterion, leading to the calculation of a median weight by which each score was multiplied. We ranked the pathogens according to the total weighted score and divided them into four priority groups. Results 127 pathogens were scored. Eighty-six experts participated in the weighting; “Case fatality rate” was rated as the most important criterion. Twenty-six pathogens were ranked in the highest priority group; among those were pathogens with internationally recognised importance (e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Influenza virus, Hepatitis C virus, Neisseria meningitides), pathogens frequently causing large outbreaks (e.g., Campylobacter spp.), and nosocomial pathogens associated with antimicrobial resistance. Other pathogens in the highest priority group included Helicobacter pylori, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Varicella zoster virus and Hantavirus. Discussion While several pathogens from the highest priority group already have a high profile in national and international health policy documents, high scores for other pathogens (e.g., Helicobacter pylori, Respiratory syncytial virus or Hantavirus) indicate a possible under-recognised importance within the current German public health framework. A process to strengthen respective surveillance systems and research has been started. The prioritization methodology has worked well; its modular structure makes it potentially useful for other settings.

[1]  A. Gilsdorf,et al.  Prioritisation of infectious diseases in public health: feedback on the prioritisation methodology, 15 July 2008 to 15 January 2009. , 2011, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[2]  B. C. Wong,et al.  Helicobacter pylori and gastritis: Untangling a complex relationship 27 years on , 2011, Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology.

[3]  Robert F Terry,et al.  A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice , 2010, Health research policy and systems.

[4]  Susan Miller.  A community health concern: respiratory syncytial virus and children. , 2010, Journal of pediatric nursing.

[5]  A. Siedler,et al.  Impact of the routine varicella vaccination programme on varicella epidemiology in Germany. , 2010, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[6]  Marta Aymerich,et al.  Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  M. Kist,et al.  Identification and molecular characterization of triple- and quadruple-resistant Helicobacter pylori clinical isolates in Germany. , 2009, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[8]  A. Ghaffar.  Setting research priorities by applying the combined approach matrix. , 2009, The Indian journal of medical research.

[9]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting , 2009, BMC health services research.

[10]  G. Krause.  Prioritisation of infectious diseases in public health--call for comments. , 2008, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[11]  Rachael Gooberman-Hill,et al.  Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[12]  Gérard Krause,et al.  How can infectious diseases be prioritized in public health? , 2008, EMBO reports.

[13]  I. Rudan,et al.  Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders. , 2007, Croatian medical journal.

[14]  Y. Nuyens.  Setting priorities for health research: lessons from low- and middle-income countries. , 2007, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[15]  A. Tegnell,et al.  Biological weapons , 2006, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences CMLS.

[16]  David J Torgerson,et al.  Setting priorities for research. , 2004, Health policy.

[17]  Pauline Allen,et al.  On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. , 2003, The Milbank quarterly.

[18]  Fabio Zicker,et al.  Strategic emphases for tropical diseases research: a TDR perspective. , 2002, Trends in parasitology.

[19]  Norman Daniels,et al.  Accountability for reasonableness , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  C. Ao.  Setting priorities: the Canadian experience in communicable disease surveillance. , 1992 .

[21]  Andrew Weber,et al.  International Health Regulations , 1971 .

[22]  Digambar Behera,et al.  Global tuberculosis control 2010 , 2012 .

[23]  O. Lucas Adetokunho,et al.  Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) TDR- FINAL REPORT SERIES , 2001 .

[24]  J. Doherty.  Establishing priorities for national communicable disease surveillance. , 2000, The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses.

[25]  Shane Marley,et al.  Control of Communicable Diseases Manual , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  A. Carter.  Setting priorities: the Canadian experience in communicable disease surveillance. , 1992, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.