Models and modelling practices for assessing the impact of outbreak response interventions to human vaccine-preventable diseases (1970-2019) - A systematic review
Azam, J. M.; Pang, X.; Are, E. B.; Pulliam, J. R. C.; Ferrari, M. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundMathematical modelling can aid outbreak response decision-making. However, this would require collaboration among model developers, decision-makers, and local experts to incorporate appropriate realism. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices among collaborations. We complemented this with a mini review of eligible studies from the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) literature. MethodsThree databases were searched for studies published during 1970-2019 that applied models to assess the impact of an outbreak response. Per included study, we extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), whether at least one author was affiliated to the country studied, interventions, and model characteristics. Furthermore, the studies were grouped into two collaboration types: purely academic (papers with only academic affiliations), and mixed (all other combinations) to help investigate differences in modelling patterns between collaboration types in the human disease literature. Additionally, we compared modelling practices between the human VPD and FMD literature. ResultsHuman VPDs formed 228 of 253 included studies. Purely academic collaborations dominated the human disease studies (56%). Notably, mixed collaborations increased in the last seven years (2013 - 2019). Most studies had an author in the country studied (75.2%) but this was more likely among the mixed collaborations. Contrasted to the human VPDs, mixed collaborations dominated the FMD literature (56%). Furthermore, FMD studies more often had an author affiliated to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation. ConclusionThe increase in mixed collaboration studies over the past seven years could suggest an increase in the uptake of modelling for outbreak response decision-making. We encourage more mixed collaborations between academic and non-academic institutions and the involvement of locally affiliated authors to help ensure that the studies suit local contexts.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Africa 93%
- Use of Interviewer-Administered Telephone Surveys during Infectious Disease Outbreaks, Epidemics, and Pandemics: A Scoping Review 93%
- Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Modelling Efforts For Policy Decision-Making In Lower- And Middle-Income Countries 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 96%
- Short-term health system responses to epidemics across hard-to-reach areas in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol 94%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Guidelines on reporting and assessing mathematical models for infectious disease dynamics: A scoping review 97%
- A systematic review of the data, methods and environmental covariates used to map Aedes-borne arbovirus transmission risk 93%
- Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: An Overview of Systematic Reviews 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus 93%
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 93%
- Strengthening Policy Coding Methodologies to Improve COVID-19 Disease Modeling and Policy Responses: A Proposed Coding Framework and Recommendations 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.