ReviewPLOS global public health2023
The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.
Review in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking Disaster Predictions to Health Care Strain and Costs: A Novel Military-Civilian Case Study.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2026Article
- Health inequalities in infectious disease modelling.Communications health · 2026Article
- Modelling practices, data provisioning, sharing and dissemination needs for pandemic decision-making: a European survey-based modellers' perspective, 2020 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
- A systematic methodology to capture the global pattern of rheumatic heart disease: the Rheumatic Heart Disease Endemicity Index (RHDEI).BMC global and public health · 2025Article
- Building an agile state-wide research infrastructure to address COVID-19 and emerging threats: insights from an equity-centered public health and academic collaboration in California.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- How mathematical modelling can inform outbreak response vaccination.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Exploring the Big Data Paradox for various estimands using vaccination data from the global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey (CTIS).Science advances · 2024Article
- Correction: The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Why does research matter to psychiatrists?Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about valuable insights regarding models, data, and experiments. In this narrative review, we summarised the existing literature on these three themes, exploring the challenges of providing forecasts, the requirement for real-time linkage of health-related datasets, and the role of 'experimentation' in evaluating interventions. This literature review encourages us to broaden our perspective for the future, acknowledging the significance of investing in models, data, and experimentation, but also to invest in areas that are conceptually more abstract: the value of 'team science', the need for public trust in science, and in establishing processes for using science in policy. Policy-makers rely on model forecasts early in a pandemic when there is little data, and it is vital to communicate the assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties (theme 1). Linked routine data can provide critical information, for example, in establishing risk factors for adverse outcomes but are often not available quickly enough to make a real-time impact. The interoperability of data resources internationally is required to facilitate sharing across jurisdictions (theme 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided timely evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals but were largely conducted in higher income countries, restricting generalisability to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Trials for non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were almost non-existent which was a missed opportunity (theme 3). Building on these themes from the narrative review, we underscore the importance of three other areas that need investment for effective evidence-driven policy-making. The COVID-19 response relied on strong multidisciplinary research infrastructures, but funders and academic institutions need to do more to incentivise team science (4). To enhance public trust in the use of scientific evidence for policy, researchers and policy-makers must work together to clearly communicate uncertainties in current evidence and any need to change policy as evidence evolves (5). Timely policy decisions require an established two-way process between scientists and policy makers to make the best use of evidence (6). For effective preparedness against future pandemics, it is essential to establish models, data, and experiments as fundamental pillars, complemented by efforts in planning and investment towards team science, public trust, and evidence-based policy-making across international communities. The paper concludes with a 'call to actions' for both policy-makers and researchers.
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.