Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
H-1 Appendix H â Sample Prioritization Process The following process is one method that can be used to prioritize health related consequences. The process provides a âformulaâ to rank consequences based on three subjectively rated dimensions: size, seriousness and changeability. The formula is not perfect nor gives the âright answer,â but rather the process fosters a deeper shared understanding of the consequences and alignment of focus among the group. Steps 1. Gather consequence data (i.e., negative health outcomes such as unbelted crash fatalities or serious injuries from alcohol-related crashes) for the communityâs population. Both absolute numbers (such as number of fatalities) as well as rates (fatalities as a percentage of the population or vehicle miles driven) should be provided. Data from other populations (the state or nation) may also be provided for comparison purposes. Reporting of the data should include definitions as well as time periods. In some cases, aggregating results over multiple years is appropriate especially for consequences with small numbers. Providing data over multiple years is also valuable to assess trends. However, all data need to be reported with the same time periods so comparisons between consequences can be accurately made. 2. Review the data with all members and make sure everyone has a common understanding of the information. 3. Ask each participant to individually rate each consequence on three criteria: a. Size â how many people are impacted; rate from 1 (small) to 3 (large) b. Seriousness â how serious is the consequence, how urgent is the issue, how much does it impact others, what is the potential economic loss; rate from 1 (not as serious) to 3 (very serious)
H-2 c. Changeability â what is the potential to change this issue over the next five years based on cost and use of effective strategies; rate from 0 (not changeable) to 3 (very changeable) 4. In small diverse groups (typically 4), have participants share their ratings and discuss as a table. Individuals can change their responses based on what they have learned from others. 5. Have each individual tabulate a final priority score for each consequence based on the formula: Priority = [Size + (2 x Seriousness)] x Changeability Results will range from a high of 27 to a low of 0. Items with a changeability rating of 0 will have a priority of 0. This is intentional. 6. Have each individual identify their top three ranked consequences (the three with the largest priority). Discuss these at each table and see if they âmake senseâ and align with peopleâs intuition and feelings. 7. Gather everyoneâs tabulations and aggregate their responses. Calculate a priority list based on the entire groupâs scoring. Share the combined results with the large group and discuss. a. Do these results make sense? b. Are any of us challenged by the ranking? c. Are there adjustments we want to make? Why?