Table 2 Importance of strategies for liver cancer control
From: Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia
| Qualitative | Quantitative | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy |
Frequency (Rank) |
OLS (SE) |
P-Value (Rank) |
Logit (SE) |
P-Value (Rank) |
| Access to treatments | 70% | 0.192 | 0.010 | 1.146 | 0.004 |
| (5) | (0.07) | (3) | 0.40 | (2) | |
| Centers of excellence | 25% | 0.192 | 0.001 | 1.079 | 0.002 |
| (10) | (0.05) | (2) | 0.35 | (3) | |
| Clinical education | 65% | 0.108 | 0.055 | 0.625 | 0.019 |
| (6) | (0.05) | (8) | 0.27 | (7) | |
| Measuring social burden | 30% | -0.025 | 0.698 | -0.185 | 0.613 |
| (8) | (0.06) | (11) | 0.37 | (10) | |
| Monitoring of at-risk populations | 80% | 0.275 | < .001 | 1.508 | < 0.001 |
| (2) | (0.06) | (1) | 0.41 | (1) | |
| Multidisciplinary management | 35% | 0.158 | 0.004 | 0.919 | 0.004 |
| (7) | (0.05) | (4) | 0.32 | (4) | |
| National guidelines | 80% | 0.158 | 0.025 | 0.678 | 0.056 |
| (2) | (0.06) | (6) | 0.36 | (6) | |
| Public awareness | 75% | 0.158 | 0.007 | 0.841 | 0.018 |
| (4) | (0.05) | (5) | 0.36 | (5) | |
| Research infrastructure | 20% | 0.058 | 0.243 | 0.337 | 0.178 |
| (11) | (0.05) | (9) | 0.25 | (9) | |
| Risk-assessment and referral | 85% | -0.008 | 0.870 | -0.135 | 0.645 |
| (1) | (0.05) | (10) | 0.29 | (11) | |
| Transplantation infrastructure | 30% | 0.125 | 0.196 | 0.352 | 0.543 |
| (8) | (0.09) | (7) | 0.58 | (8) | |