ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Enhancing epidemic forecast usability for policymakers: A global mixed-methods study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical gaps in the generation, interpretation, and use of epidemic forecasts for public health decision-making. We conducted a global mixed-methods study combining an online survey (n = 143, from 46 countries across all World Bank income groups) with 13 semi-structured interviews to examine how epidemic forecasts were perceived, used, and communicated by stakeholders involved in COVID-19 policy dialogues. Survey responses were analysed descriptively, stratified by country income group, while interview transcripts were analysed thematically using the Framework Method. Forecasts informed policy questions ranging from epidemic size estimation to intervention planning, with the projected impact of interventions (65%), epidemic peak (64%), and prevalence (62%) being the most frequently communicated metrics. Preferred formats varied by setting: 72% of high-income country (HIC) respondents valued explicit uncertainty presentation, compared with 34% in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) and 23% in low-income countries (LICs). Barriers to forecast use were most pronounced in lower-income settings, where 47% of LIC and LMIC respondents reported that colleagues did not understand the modelling methodology, compared with 3% in HICs. Qualitative data highlighted that forecast credibility depended on interpersonal trust, institutional relationships, and contextual relevance rather than statistical sophistication alone. Findings should be interpreted in light of potential recall and selection biases inherent in retrospective, convenience-sampled designs. Strengthening forecast impact will require modular, user-oriented tools, embedding modellers within response teams, co-developing decision-relevant metrics, and sustained investment in foundational health information systems, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
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.