Back

Optimizing Social Distancing Policies: A Dynamic Programming Approach for Coupled High and Low Risk Populations

Dai, P.; Vardavas, R.; Nowak, S. A.; Suen, S.-c.

2021-10-26 health policy
10.1101/2021.10.24.21265170 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDecision makers may use social distancing to reduce transmission between risk groups in a pandemic scenario like Covid-19. However, it may result in both financial, mental, and social costs. Given these tradeoffs, it is unclear when and who needs to social distance over the course of a pandemic when policies are allowed to change dynamically over time and vary across different risk groups (e.g., older versus younger individuals face different Covid-19 risks). In this study, we examine the optimal time to implement social distancing to optimize social utility, using Covid-19 as an example. MethodologyWe propose using a Markov decision process (MDP) model that incorporates transmission dynamics of an age-stratified SEIR compartmental model to identify the optimal social distancing policy for each risk group over time. We parameterize the model using population-based tracking data on Covid-19 within the US. We compare results of two cases: allowing the social distancing policy to vary only over time, or over both time and population (by risk group). To examine the robustness of our results, we perform sensitivity analysis on patient costs, transmission rates, clearance rates, mortality rates. ResultsOur model framework can be used to effectively evaluate dynamic policies while disease transmission and progression occurs. When the policy cannot vary by subpopulation, the optimal policy is to implement social distancing for a limited duration at the beginning of the epidemic; when the policy can vary by subpopulation, our results suggest that some subgroups (older adults) may never need to socially distance. This result may occur because older adults occupy a relatively small proportion of the total population and have less contact with others even without social distancing. ConclusionOur results show that the additional flexibility of allowing social distancing policies to vary over time and across the population can generate substantial utility gain even when only two patient risk groups are considered. MDP frameworks may help generate helpful insights for policymakers. Our results suggest that social distancing for high-contact but low-risk individuals (e.g., such as younger adults) may be more beneficial in some settings than doing so for low-contact but high-risk individuals (e.g., older adults).

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
23.2%
2
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
5
Statistics in Medicine
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
6
Epidemics
116 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
7
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
8
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.9%
9
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
10
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
92 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.2%
11
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
13
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
14
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 28%
1.1%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.9%
19
Vaccines
198 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 43%
0.6%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.5%
22
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
24
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%