Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Development of a Model for Quantitative Assessment of Newborn Screening in Japan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Development of a Model for Quantitative Assessment of Newborn Screening in Japan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Do you wish to request the book?
Development of a Model for Quantitative Assessment of Newborn Screening in Japan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Development of a Model for Quantitative Assessment of Newborn Screening in Japan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
2023
Overview
Whether or not conditions should be included in publicly funded newborn screening (NBS) programs should be discussed according to objective and transparent criteria. Certain criteria have been developed for the introduction of NBS programs in the context of individual countries; however, there are no standard selection criteria for NBS programs in Japan. This study aimed to develop a quantitative scoring model to assess newborn screening that incorporates the views of a variety of stakeholders in Japan. The five recommended eligibility criteria for NBS were stratified based on previous studies and expert opinions, using the analytic hierarchy process. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based questionnaire targeting a wide range of people involved in NBS to investigate pairwise comparisons of the evaluation items between February and April of 2022. There were 143 respondents. Most of our respondents (44.1%) were physicians. Fifty-eight respondents (40.6%) had been engaged in NBS-related research or work for more than 10 years. The distribution of allocation points was the highest for ‘intervention’, ‘screening test’, ‘follow-up setting’, ’economic evaluation’, and ’disease/condition’, in that order. The algorithm in this study will guide decision makers in collecting and evaluating objective data, thus enabling transparent discussions to occur.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
