This term means the burden placed by the disease/injury on the population in terms of premature mortality and disability. It is usually measured by using mortality data, that is, assessing of years lost of premature mortality, and ranking diseases according to their contribution to this total. In the last few years a number of countries have attempted burden of disease studies which include disability composite measures such as the YHLL and DALY.

YHLL (Years of Healthy Life Lost) - numbers of healthy years of life that are lost through illness, disability and death as a consequence of the disease; and
DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) - numbers of years lost due to premature mortality and disability from disease

Both CBA and CEA are concerned with the cost of intervention and compare the resources used in a particular intervention (cost of an activity) with the expected outcome (benefits) resulting from it. The difference between CBA and CEA is that in CBA benefits are valued in monetary terms; CEA are left as outcomes (the simplest outcome measure used is deaths averted, which can be made more sophisticated by measuring life-years saved; and so on.)

A technique for priority setting which allows consideration of the multiple variables in the decision making process. In this approach, various reasons for giving priority to a health problem are set (size of the problem in terms of morbidity; consequent suffering and disability; effects of the problem on disruption to the family; economic consequences of the problem; likely demand from the public for the problem to be dealt with; technical feasibility of a solution to the problem, and social consequences of the problem). Professionals with expertise related to each of the variables are asked to rank which health problems they thought were most important in terms of that variable alone. Then, weights are given to the variables. Alternatively, tables are developed and used as background documents for decision-makers.

Such an approach, although allowing for limited community input, is generally used professionally to selected problems. One advantage is that this approach does not rely on quantified indicators.

This involves a clear leadership role. The individual is in charge of making the decisions, usually because of her/his position. The leader may consult colleagues and communities, using some other techniques, but ultimately the leader makes the final decision.

Based on the desire to reach a clear consensus of opinions in an open and fair manner. These techniques are closer to the philosophy of primary health care, though may be a far more laborious process.

Several techniques may be used to facilitate this process. One of them, the Delphi technique, involves a group of individuals asked to give answers to questions (in this case related to priorities), and the answers are shared among the group. The same question is then asked a second time. As a result of first sharing of answers, some individuals may shift their position. The process continues till a consensus is reached.

Thus, priority-setting involves a combination of techniques and value judgments. What values are chosen, the health professionals, community members, etc, is a critical decision.