ArticleInfectious Disease Modelling2022
Balancing timeliness of reporting with increasing testing probability for epidemic data.
Article in Infectious Disease Modelling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reporting of epidemiological data requires coordinated action by numerous agencies, across a multitude of logistical steps. Using collated and reported information to inform direct interventions can be challenging due to associated delays. Mitigation can, however, occur indirectly through the public generation of concern, which facilitates adherence to protective behaviors. We utilized a coupled-dynamic multiplex network model with a communication- and disease-layer to examine how variation in reporting delay and testing probability are likely to impact adherence to protective behaviors, such as reducing physical contact. Individual concern mediated adherence and was informed by new- or active-case reporting, at the population- or community-level. Individuals received information from the communication layer: direct connections that were sick or adherent to protective behaviors increased their concern, but absence of illness eroded concern. Models revealed that the relative benefit of timely reporting and a high probability of testing was contingent on how much information was already obtained. With low rates of testing, increasing testing probability was of greater mitigating value. With high rates of testing, maximizing timeliness was of greater value. Population-level reporting provided advanced warning of disease risk from nearby communities; but we explore the relative costs and benefits of delays due to scale against the assumption that people may prioritize community-level information. Our findings emphasize the interaction of testing accuracy and reporting timeliness for the indirect mitigation of disease in a complex social system.
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.