Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26829313›Full record

ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2016

The impacts of simultaneous disease intervention decisions on epidemic outcomes.

Michael A Andrews, Chris T Bauch

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Timing social distancing to avert unmanageable COVID-19 hospital surges.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael A AndrewsUniversity of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. E. Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: mandre04@uoguelph.ca.
Chris T BauchUniversity of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. E. Guelph, Ontario, Canada; University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: cbauch@uwaterloo.ca.
University of Guelph · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical models of the interplay between disease dynamics and human behavioural dynamics can improve our understanding of how diseases spread when individuals adapt their behaviour in response to an epidemic. Accounting for behavioural mechanisms that determine uptake of infectious disease interventions such as vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can significantly alter predicted health outcomes in a population. However, most previous approaches that model interactions between human behaviour and disease dynamics have modelled behaviour of these two interventions separately. Here, we develop and analyze an agent based network model to gain insights into how behaviour toward both interventions interact adaptively with disease dynamics (and therefore, indirectly, with one another) during the course of a single epidemic where an SIRV infection spreads through a contact network. In the model, individuals decide to become vaccinated and/or practice NPIs based on perceived infection prevalence (locally or globally) and on what other individuals in the network are doing. We find that introducing adaptive NPI behaviour lowers vaccine uptake on account of behavioural feedbacks, and also decreases epidemic final size. When transmission rates are low, NPIs alone are as effective in reducing epidemic final size as NPIs and vaccination combined. Also, NPIs can compensate for delays in vaccine availability by hindering early disease spread, decreasing epidemic size significantly compared to the case where NPI behaviour does not adapt to mitigate early surges in infection prevalence. We also find that including adaptive NPI behaviour strongly mitigates the vaccine behavioural feedbacks that would otherwise result in higher vaccine uptake at lower vaccine efficacy as predicted by most previous models, and the same feedbacks cause epidemic final size to remain approximately constant across a broad range of values for vaccine efficacy. Finally, when individuals use local information about others' behaviour and infection prevalence, instead of population-level information, infection is controlled more efficiently through ring vaccination, and this is reflected in the time evolution of pair correlations on the network. This model shows that accounting for both adaptive NPI behaviour and adaptive vaccinating behaviour regarding social effects and infection prevalence can result in qualitatively different predictions than if only one type of adaptive behaviour is modelled.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlModels, BiologicalCommunicable DiseasesHumansAdaptive networksEconophysicsEpidemic modellingNonpharmaceutical interventionsVaccinating behaviour

Identifiers

PMID26829313
PMCPMC7094134
OpenAlexW2273384719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.