Citation

Mulder S, Blankendaal F, Vriend I, Schoots W, Bouter L. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2002; 34(5): 695-702.

Affiliation

Consumer Safety Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.mulder@consafe.nl

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

12214964

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine how to use the multitude of available epidemiological data to rank accidents for prioritisation of prevention. METHODS: A stepwise method to rank accidents for priority-setting at any time is proposed. The first step is to determine the overall objectives of injury prevention. Based on these objectives, the relevant epidemiological criteria are determined. These criteria need to be weighed by experts in such a way that these weights can be used for every new cycle of priority-setting. Thus, every time the method is applied: first, the relevant types of accidents are identified; second, the epidemiological criteria are determined per type of accident; and third, the types of accidents are ranked by means of standardised weights per criterion. The proposed indirect method is illustrated by an empirical example. The results were compared with a direct method, i.e. ranking by an expert panel. RESULTS: In the pilot, we ranked four age groups of victims of a home and leisure accident: 0-4, 4-19 and 20-54 years of age, and victims aged 55 years or older. The resulting rankings differ largely per application; number one are victims older than 55 years or those of 20-54 years. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method enables a structured, transparent way to set priorities for home and leisure accidents. It is a promising method, although further development is clearly necessary, based on the actual application of the model.