Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38813579›Full record

ArticleDialogues in health2024

Incorporating endogenous human behavior in models of COVID-19 transmission: A systematic scoping review.

Alisa Hamilton, Fardad Haghpanah, Alexander Tulchinsky, Nodar Kipshidze, Suprena Poleon, Gary Lin, Hongru Du, Lauren Gardner, Eili Klein

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Dialogues in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

9 authors.

Alisa HamiltonOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Fardad HaghpanahOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Alexander TulchinskyOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Nodar KipshidzeOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Suprena PoleonOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Gary LinOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
Hongru DuDepartment of Civil & Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Lauren GardnerDepartment of Civil & Systems Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Eili KleinOne Health Trust, 5636 Connecticut Avenue NW, PO Box 4235, Washington, DC 20015, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic there was a plethora of dynamical forecasting models created, but their ability to effectively describe future trajectories of disease was mixed. A major challenge in evaluating future case trends was forecasting the behavior of individuals. When behavior was incorporated into models, it was primarily incorporated exogenously (e.g., fitting to cellphone mobility data). Fewer models incorporated behavior endogenously (e.g., dynamically changing a model parameter throughout the simulation). Methods: This review aimed to qualitatively characterize models that included an adaptive (endogenous) behavioral element in the context of COVID-19 transmission. We categorized studies into three approaches: 1) feedback loops, 2) game theory/utility theory, and 3) information/opinion spread. Findings: Of the 92 included studies, 72% employed a feedback loop, 27% used game/utility theory, and 9% used a model if information/opinion spread. Among all studies, 89% used a compartmental model alone or in combination with other model types. Similarly, 15% used a network model, 11% used an agent-based model, 7% used a system dynamics model, and 1% used a Markov chain model. Descriptors of behavior change included mask-wearing, social distancing, vaccination, and others. Sixty-eight percent of studies calibrated their model to observed data and 25% compared simulated forecasts to observed data. Forty-one percent of studies compared versions of their model with and without endogenous behavior. Models with endogenous behavior tended to show a smaller and delayed initial peak with subsequent periodic waves. Interpretation: While many COVID-19 models incorporated behavior exogenously, these approaches may fail to capture future adaptations in human behavior, resulting in under- or overestimates of disease burden. By incorporating behavior endogenously, the next generation of infectious disease models could more effectively predict outcomes so that decision makers can better prepare for and respond to epidemics. Funding: This study was funded in-part by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Indexed as

COVID-19Human behaviorInfectious diseaseMathematical modeling

Identifiers

PMID38813579
PMCPMC11134564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.