Dataset Information

Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the increasing popularity of multi-model comparison studies and their ability to inform policy recommendations, clear guidance on how to conduct multi-model comparisons is not available. Herein, we present guidelines to provide a structured approach to comparisons of multiple models of interventions against infectious diseases. The primary target audience for these guidelines are researchers carrying out model comparison studies and policy-makers using model comparison studies to inform policy decisions.

Methods

The consensus process used for the development of the guidelines included a systematic review of existing model comparison studies on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination, a 2-day meeting and guideline development workshop during which mathematical modellers from different disease areas critically discussed and debated the guideline content and wording, and several rounds of comments on sequential versions of the guidelines by all authors.

Results

The guidelines provide principles for multi-model comparisons, with specific practice statements on what modellers should do for six domains. The guidelines provide explanation and elaboration of the principles and practice statements as well as some examples to illustrate these. The principles are (1) the policy and research question - the model comparison should address a relevant, clearly defined policy question; (2) model identification and selection - the identification and selection of models for inclusion in the model comparison should be transparent and minimise selection bias; (3) harmonisation - standardisation of input data and outputs should be determined by the research question and value of the effort needed for this step; (4) exploring variability - between- and within-model variability and uncertainty should be explored; (5) presenting and pooling results - results should be presented in an appropriate way to support decision-making; and (6) interpretation - results should be interpreted to inform the policy question.

Conclusion

These guidelines should help researchers plan, conduct and report model comparisons of infectious diseases and related interventions in a systematic and structured manner for the purpose of supporting health policy decisions. Adherence to these guidelines will contribute to greater consistency and objectivity in the approach and methods used in multi-model comparisons, and as such improve the quality of modelled evidence for policy.

SUBMITTER: den Boon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6699075 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.

den Boon Saskia S Jit Mark M Brisson Marc M Medley Graham G Beutels Philippe P White Richard R Flasche Stefan S Hollingsworth T Déirdre TD Garske Tini T Pitzer Virginia E VE Hoogendoorn Martine M Geffen Oliver O Clark Andrew A Kim Jane J Hutubessy Raymond R

BMC medicine 20190819 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the increasing popularity of multi-model comparison studies and their ability to inform policy recommendations, clear guidance on how to conduct multi-model comparisons is not available. Herein, we present guidelines to provide a structured approach to comparisons of multiple models of interventions against infectious diseases. The primary target audience for these guidelines are researchers carrying out model comparison studies and policy-makers using model comparison ...[more]

PMID: 31422772

Similar Datasets

Project description:The world is continuously urbanising, resulting in clusters of densely populated urban areas and more sparsely populated rural areas. We propose a method for generating spatial fields with controllable levels of clustering of the population. We build a synthetic country, and use this method to generate versions of the country with different clustering levels. Combined with a metapopulation model for infectious disease spread, this allows us to in silico explore how urbanisation affects infectious disease spread. In a baseline scenario with no interventions, the underlying population clustering seems to have little effect on the final size and timing of the epidemic. Under within-country restrictions on non-commuting travel, the final size decreases with increased population clustering. The effect of travel restrictions on reducing the final size is larger with higher clustering. The reduction is larger in the more rural areas. Within-country travel restrictions delay the epidemic, and the delay is largest for lower clustering levels. We implemented three different vaccination strategies-uniform vaccination (in space), preferentially vaccinating urban locations and preferentially vaccinating rural locations. The urban and uniform vaccination strategies were most effective in reducing the final size, while the rural vaccination strategy was clearly inferior. Visual inspection of some European countries shows that many countries already have high population clustering. In the future, they will likely become even more clustered. Hence, according to our model, within-country travel restrictions are likely to be less and less effective in delaying epidemics, while they will be more effective in decreasing final sizes. In addition, to minimise final sizes, it is important not to neglect urban locations when distributing vaccines. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically investigate the effect of urbanisation on infectious disease spread and in particular, to examine effectiveness of prevention measures as a function of urbanisation.

Project description:ObjectivesReducing inequalities in health and financial risk are key goals on the path toward universal health coverage, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The design of the health benefit package creates an opportunity to select interventions through established criteria. The aim of this study is to examine the health equity and financial protection impact of selected interventions, along with their costs, at the national level in Ethiopia.DesignDistributional cost-effectiveness analysis.PopulationThe eligible population for all selected interventions is assumed to be 10 million.Data sourcesData on disease prevalence and population size were gathered from the Global Burden of Disease database, and average health benefits and program costs are sourced from the Ethiopian Essential Health Service Package (EHSP) database, national surveys and other publicly available sources.InterventionA total of 30 interventions were selected from the latest EHSP revision and analysed over a 1-year period.Outcome measuresHealth benefits, social welfare indices and financial protection metrics across income quintiles were reported.ResultsWe found 23 interventions that improve population health and reduce health inequality and four interventions reduce both population health and health inequality. Additionally, three interventions improve population health while increasing health inequality. Overall, the EHSP interventions provide a 0.021 improvement in health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) per person, with a positive distributional equity impact: 0.029 (26.9%) HALE gained in the poorest and 0.015 (14.0%) in the richest quintile. Similarly, a total of 1 79 475 cases of catastrophic health expenditure were averted, including 82 100 (46.0%) cases in the poorest and 17 900 (10.0%) in the richest quintile.ConclusionIncreasing access to the EHSP improves health equity and financial protection. Improved access to selected EHSP interventions also has the potential to provide greater benefits to the poorest and thereby improve social welfare.

Project description:Outbreaks of emerging and zoonotic infections represent a substantial threat to human health and well-being. These outbreaks tend to be characterised by highly stochastic transmission dynamics with intense variation in transmission potential between cases. The negative binomial distribution is commonly used as a model for transmission in the early stages of an epidemic as it has a natural interpretation as the convolution of a Poisson contact process and a gamma-distributed infectivity. In this study we expand upon the negative binomial model by introducing a beta-Poisson mixture model in which infectious individuals make contacts at the points of a Poisson process and then transmit infection along these contacts with a beta-distributed probability. We show that the negative binomial distribution is a limit case of this model, as is the zero-inflated Poisson distribution obtained by combining a Poisson-distributed contact process with an additional failure probability. We assess the beta-Poisson model's applicability by fitting it to secondary case distributions (the distribution of the number of subsequent cases generated by a single case) estimated from outbreaks covering a range of pathogens and geographical settings. We find that while the beta-Poisson mixture can achieve a closer to fit to data than the negative binomial distribution, it is consistently outperformed by the negative binomial in terms of Akaike Information Criterion, making it a suboptimal choice on parsimonious grounds. The beta-Poisson performs similarly to the negative binomial model in its ability to capture features of the secondary case distribution such as overdispersion, prevalence of superspreaders, and the probability of a case generating zero subsequent cases. Despite this possible shortcoming, the beta-Poisson distribution may still be of interest in the context of intervention modelling since its structure allows for the simulation of measures which change contact structures while leaving individual-level infectivity unchanged, and vice-versa.

Dataset Information

Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets