ArticleInterface focus2025
Improving modelling for epidemic response: a progress update from a community of UK infectious disease modellers.
Article in Interface focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Improving modelling for epidemic response: a progress update from a community of UK infectious disease modellers.Interface focus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We reflect on the sustainability of modelling infectious disease outbreaks from the perspective of modelling as a field of practice. We formed a community of practice among UK infectious disease modellers who had contributed to the UK COVID-19 response. We previously used a participatory workshop approach to highlight issues in the infrastructure and incentives for outbreak modelling, and synthesized our experience into a set of 12 specific recommendations. Here, we track changes in the field of infectious disease modelling 1 year later, collecting the quantitative and qualitative views of change among 14 participants. We found participants continued to highlight a lack of ongoing, sufficient or appropriate action to develop outbreak modelling capacity in the UK, while positively noting collaborations among public health facing institutions. We emphasize the under-prioritization of funding for outbreak modelling outside of emergency response periods, and the continuation of unsustainable working practices. Correcting this is crucial to supporting evidence-based public health policy for outbreak preparedness and response.
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.