Table 3. Results of Delphi survey.
| Endemicity (N = 18) | Score | Burden (N = 16) | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top indicators | Range 0–5 * | % Rank Top 3 | Top indicators | Range 0–5 * | % Rank Top 3 |
| New case detection (number and/or rate) | 4.11 | 88.9 | Prevalence of people with disabilities due to leprosy | 1.63 | 37.5 |
| New cases detected among children (number and/or rate) | 2.00 | 44.4 | New case detection (number and/or rate) | 1.63 | 31.3 |
| Proportion of child cases among total new cases detected | 1.22 | 27.8 | Number of reactions, neuritis & lasting disabilities | 1.50 | 31.3 |
| Proportion of G2D cases among total new cases detected | 1.17 | 22.2 | New cases detected with G2D (number and/or rate) | 1.13 | 18.8 |
| New cases detected with G2D (number and/or rate) | 0.89 | 16.7 | Prevalence (number and/or rate) | 1.00 | 18.8 |
| New case detection trend | 0.78 | 16.7 | Proportion of G2D cases among total new cases detected | 0.94 | 18.8 |
| Disability-adjusted life years | 0.94 | 18.8 | |||
| Usage of Indicator value | Range: 0–4** | % Agree | Usage of Indicator value | Range: 0–4 | % Agree |
| Single year value and average value of past three/five/ten years | 3.3 | 83.3 | Single year value and average value of past three or five years | 3.1 | 75.0 |
| Average of past three years | 2.4 | 44.4 | Average of past three or five years | 3.1 | 87.5 |
| Average of past five years | 2.4 | 44.4 | Single-year value | 2.0 | 31.3 |
| Average of past ten years | 2.2 | 50.0 | |||
| Single-year value | 1.8 | 38.9 | |||
| Classification levels | Range: 0–2*** | % Relevant | Classification levels | Range: 0–2** | % Relevant |
| High | 1.39 | 94.4 | High | 1.50 | 93.8 |
| Low | 1.39 | 94.4 | Low | 1.38 | 87.5 |
| Non-endemic | 1.33 | 83.3 | No burden | 1.25 | 75.0 |
| Medium | 1.17 | 77.8 | Very High | 1.06 | 68.8 |
| Hyper | 0.89 | 61.1 | Medium | 0.94 | 62.5 |
| No specific level (i.e. endemic/ non-endemic) | 0.72 | 50.0 | |||
| Indicator cut-offs | Range: 0–4** | % Agree | Indicator cut-offs | Range: 0–4 | % Agree |
| Usage of indicator cut-off values is essential | 2.7 | 57.1 | Usage of indicator cut-off values is essential | 2.8 | 73.3 |
| Indicator cut-off values should be standardized | 2.9 | 78.6 | Indicator cut-off values should be standardized | 2.3 | 60.0 |
| Preferred Method of Indicator Scoring | Range: 0–2*** | % Relevant | Preferred Method of Indicator Scoring | Range: 0–2** | % Relevant |
| Score of multiple relevant indicators ^ | 1.24 | 88.2 | Score of multiple relevant indicators ^ | 1.3 | 86.7 |
| Composite score ^^ | 1.18 | 82.4 | Composite score ^^ | 1.0 | 80.0 |
| Score of a single (most relevant) indicator ^^^ | 0.94 | 70.6 | Score of a single (most relevant) indicator ^^^ | 0.8 | 66.7 |
* based on ranking scores: rank 1 to 10; rank 1 (5 pts), 2 (4 pts), 3 (3pts), 4 (2pts), 5 (1pt), 6–10 (0 pts)
** scoring based on five categories: strongly agree (4), agree (3), neutral (2), disagree (1), strongly disagree (0)
*** scoring based on three categories: highly relevant (2); relevant (1), and not relevant (0)
^ i.e. multiple classification level: one for each indicator
^^ i.e. one overall classification level based on multiple relevant indicators
^^^ i.e. one overall classification level