ArticleEpidemics2022
Recalibrating the notion of modelling for policymaking during pandemics.
Article in Epidemics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collaborative Policymaking: a qualitative systematic review of advice for policymakers.Open research Europe · 2024Pooled it
- On urban maladaptation in times of epidemics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Past, present, and future: a situational analysis of infectious disease modelling in Thailand.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Review
- Framework to guide the use of mathematical modelling in evidence-based policy decision-making.BMJ open · 2025Review
- How mathematical modelling can inform outbreak response vaccination.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on HTAsiaLink network members.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Lessons learned from COVID-19 modelling efforts for policy decision-making in lower- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Scoping review of modelling studies assessing the impact of disruptions to essential health services during COVID-19.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Assessing the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in a low incidence and low mortality setting: the case of Thailand at start of the pandemic.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- Strongyloides and COVID-19: Challenges and Opportunities for Future Research.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Review
- Dynamic transmission modeling of COVID-19 to support decision-making in Brazil: A scoping review in the pre-vaccine era.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- What, Where, and How to Collect Real-World Data and Generate Real-World Evidence to Support Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making in Asia: A reflection Into the Past and A Way Forward.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Epidemic SI COVID-19 modeling in LMICs: Accompanying commentary.Epidemics · 2022Article
- COVID-19 collaborative modelling for policy response in the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Review
- How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 14 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
Abstract
COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.