Cargando…
A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions
BACKGROUND: Risk‐based decision making is increasingly recognized as key to support national blood policy makers and blood operators concerning the implementation of safety interventions, especially to address emerging infectious threats and new technology opportunities. There is an urgent need for...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7898802/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33368381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.16231 |
_version_ | 1783653939356368896 |
---|---|
author | Janssen, Mart P. Nuebling, C. Micha Lery, François‐Xavier Maryuningsih, Yuyun S. Epstein, Jay S. |
author_facet | Janssen, Mart P. Nuebling, C. Micha Lery, François‐Xavier Maryuningsih, Yuyun S. Epstein, Jay S. |
author_sort | Janssen, Mart P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Risk‐based decision making is increasingly recognized as key to support national blood policy makers and blood operators concerning the implementation of safety interventions, especially to address emerging infectious threats and new technology opportunities. There is an urgent need for practical decision support tools, especially for low‐ and middle‐income countries that may not have the financial or technical capability to develop risk models. WHO supported the development of such a tool for blood safety. The tool enables users to perform both a quantitative Multi‐Criteria Decision Assessment and a novel step‐by‐step qualitative assessment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This paper summarizes the content, functionalities, and added value of the new WHO tool. A fictitious case study of a safety intervention to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by transfusion was used to demonstrate the use and usefulness of the tool. RESULTS: Application of the tool highlighted strengths and weaknesses of both the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach facilitates assessment of the robustness of the decision but lacks nuances and interpretability especially when multiple constraints are taken into consideration. Conversely, while unable to provide an assessment of robustness, the step‐by‐step qualitative approach helps structuring the thought process and argumentation for a preferred intervention in a systematic manner. CONCLUSION: The relative strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative and step‐by‐step qualitative approach to risk‐based decision making are complementary and mutually enhancing. A combination of the two approaches is therefore advisable to support the selection of appropriate blood safety interventions for a particular setting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7898802 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78988022021-03-03 A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions Janssen, Mart P. Nuebling, C. Micha Lery, François‐Xavier Maryuningsih, Yuyun S. Epstein, Jay S. Transfusion Donor Infectious Disease Testing BACKGROUND: Risk‐based decision making is increasingly recognized as key to support national blood policy makers and blood operators concerning the implementation of safety interventions, especially to address emerging infectious threats and new technology opportunities. There is an urgent need for practical decision support tools, especially for low‐ and middle‐income countries that may not have the financial or technical capability to develop risk models. WHO supported the development of such a tool for blood safety. The tool enables users to perform both a quantitative Multi‐Criteria Decision Assessment and a novel step‐by‐step qualitative assessment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This paper summarizes the content, functionalities, and added value of the new WHO tool. A fictitious case study of a safety intervention to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by transfusion was used to demonstrate the use and usefulness of the tool. RESULTS: Application of the tool highlighted strengths and weaknesses of both the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach facilitates assessment of the robustness of the decision but lacks nuances and interpretability especially when multiple constraints are taken into consideration. Conversely, while unable to provide an assessment of robustness, the step‐by‐step qualitative approach helps structuring the thought process and argumentation for a preferred intervention in a systematic manner. CONCLUSION: The relative strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative and step‐by‐step qualitative approach to risk‐based decision making are complementary and mutually enhancing. A combination of the two approaches is therefore advisable to support the selection of appropriate blood safety interventions for a particular setting. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-12-25 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7898802/ /pubmed/33368381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.16231 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of AABB. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Donor Infectious Disease Testing Janssen, Mart P. Nuebling, C. Micha Lery, François‐Xavier Maryuningsih, Yuyun S. Epstein, Jay S. A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title | A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title_full | A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title_fullStr | A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title_short | A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
title_sort | who tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions |
topic | Donor Infectious Disease Testing |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7898802/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33368381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.16231 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT janssenmartp awhotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT nueblingcmicha awhotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT leryfrancoisxavier awhotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT maryuningsihyuyuns awhotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT epsteinjays awhotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT janssenmartp whotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT nueblingcmicha whotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT leryfrancoisxavier whotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT maryuningsihyuyuns whotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions AT epsteinjays whotoolforriskbaseddecisionmakingonbloodsafetyinterventions |