Table 2

Criteria and measurement scales used in the surveillance (SURV) and control (CONT) models
Category Criteria Scale Model
SURV CONT
Public health criteria (PHC) PHC1 Reduction in incidence of human cases 0: Nil; 1: Low; 2: Moderate; 3: High X
PHC2 Reduction in entomological risk 0: Nil; 1: Low; 2: Moderate; 3: High X
PHC3 Impacts of adverse health effects 0: Nil; 1: Indirect effects on mental or social health; 2: Direct effects on physical health X
Animal and environmental health criteria (AEC) AEC 1 Impact on habitat Surface*Sensitivity*Intensity1 X
Surface : 1: Nil; 2: Small scale;
3: Large scale; Sensitivity: 1: Nil; 2: Land;
3: Water ; 4: Land and water; Intensity: 1: Nil; 2: Fences;
3: Mowing; 4: Acaricides; 5: Removal of vegetation or burning
AEC 2 Impact on wildlife Number*Species*Intensity2 X
Number: 1: Nil; 2: Effect on specific species;
3: Effect on several species; Species: 1: Nil,
2: low valued species; 3: Highly valued species; Intensity: 1: No effect; 2: Morbidity; 3: Mortality
Social impact criteria (SIC) SIC 1 Level of public acceptance 1: Nil; 2: Low; 3: Moderate; 4: High X
SIC 2 Proportion of population benefitting from intervention 1:<25%; 2:25-50%; 3:50-75%; 4:>75% X
Strategic, economic and operational impact criteria (SEC) SEC1 Cost to the public sector 0: Nil; 1: Low; 2: Moderate; 3: High X X
SEC2 Cost to the private sector 0: Nil; 1: Low; 2: Moderate; 3: High X X
SEC3 Delay before results 1: Days; 2: Weeks; 3: Months; 4: Years X X
SEC4 Complexity 1: Simple (minor institutional changes); X X
2:Intermediate (necessitates new hires); 3: Moderate (necessitate new work teams in one sector of intervention); 4: Complex (requires inter-sectoral/inter-institutional changes);
5: Very complex (necessitates creation of new structures or organisations)
SEC5 Impact on organisation’s credibility 0: Nil; 1: Low; 2: Moderate; 3: High X
Surveillance criteria (SUC) SUC1 Detection of zones where tick populations are present 1: Less than 10%; 2: Low (11-50%); 3: Moderate (51-70%); 4: High (>71%) X
SUC2 Identification of zones where tick populations are established 1: Less than 10%; 2: Low (11-50%); 3: Moderate (51-70%); 4: High (>71%) X
SUC3 Identification of Lyme endemic zones 1: Less than10%; 2: Low (11-50%);3: Moderate (51-70%); 4: High (>71%) X
SUC4 Quality of data 1: Poor; 2: Medium; 3: High X

1The score is calculated using a multiplication of three indicators: surface, sensitivity and intensity.

2The score is calculated using a multiplication of three indicators: number, species and intensity.

Aenishaenslin et al.

Aenishaenslin et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:897   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-897

Open Data