Table 3 Self-explicated rankings of criteria for prioritizing the HIV response
From: Criteria for prioritization of HIV programs in Viet Nam: a discrete choice experiment
| Â | Most important | Â | Least Important | Mode | Median | Mean | std.dev. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
All Stakeholders | |||||||||
 Effectiveness | 43% | 29% | 16% | 7% | 4% | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 1.007 |
 Cost-effectiveness | 14% | 20% | 13% | 38% | 14% | 4 | 4 | 3.17 | 1.221 |
 Sustainability | 14% | 19% | 28% | 28% | 12% | 3 | 3 | 3.03 | 1.133 |
 Treatment/Prevention | 6% | 4% | 17% | 10% | 62% | 5 | 5 | 4.19 | 1.246 |
 Feasibility | 22% | 28% | 26% | 17% | 7% | 2 | 3 | 2.61 | 1.102 |
Development Partners | |||||||||
 Effectiveness | 48% | 26% | 9% | 13% | 4% | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 1.103 |
 Cost-effectiveness | 13% | 22% | 13% | 30% | 22% | 4 | 4 | 3.26 | 1.251 |
 Sustainability | 4% | 26% | 26% | 30% | 13% | 4 | 3 | 3.22 | 1.016 |
 Treatment/Prevention | 4% | 4% | 30% | 9% | 52% | 5 | 5 | 4.00 | 1.180 |
 Feasibility | 30% | 22% | 22% | 17% | 9% | 1 | 2 | 2.52 | 1.187 |
Government | |||||||||
 Effectiveness | 27% | 38% | 31% | 0% | 4% | 2 | 2 | 2.15 | 0.835 |
 Cost-effectiveness | 15% | 8% | 12% | 58% | 8% | 4 | 4 | 3.35 | 1.172 |
 Sustainability | 23% | 15% | 27% | 27% | 8% | 3 | 3 | 2.81 | 1.190 |
 Treatment/Prevention | 8% | 4% | 8% | 8% | 73% | 5 | 5 | 4.35 | 1.304 |
 Feasibility | 27% | 35% | 23% | 8% | 8% | 2 | 2 | 2.35 | 1.021 |
Civil Society | |||||||||
 Effectiveness | 60% | 20% | 5% | 10% | 5% | 1 | 1 | 1.80 | 1.053 |
 Cost-effectiveness | 15% | 35% | 15% | 20% | 15% | 2 | 2 | 2.85 | 1.165 |
 Sustainability | 15% | 15% | 30% | 25% | 15% | 3 | 3 | 3.10 | 1.155 |
 Treatment/Prevention | 5% | 5% | 15% | 15% | 60% | 5 | 5 | 4.20 | 1.207 |
 Feasibility | 5% | 25% | 35% | 30% | 5% | 3 | 3 | 3.05 | 0.925 |