Forecasting the 2014 West African Ebola Outbreak.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Epidemiologic Reviews Pub Date : 2019-01-31 DOI:10.1093/epirev/mxz013
C. Carias, J. O'Hagan, M. Gambhir, E. Kahn, D. Swerdlow, M. Meltzer
{"title":"Forecasting the 2014 West African Ebola Outbreak.","authors":"C. Carias, J. O'Hagan, M. Gambhir, E. Kahn, D. Swerdlow, M. Meltzer","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxz013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2014/15 an Ebola outbreak of unprecedented dimensions afflicted the West African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. We performed a systematic review of manuscripts that forecasted the outbreak while it was occurring, and derive implications on the ways results could be interpreted by policy-makers. We reviewed 26 manuscripts, published between 2014 and April 2015, that presented forecasts of the West African Ebola outbreak. Forecasted case counts varied widely. An important determinant of forecast accuracy for case counts was how far into the future predictions were made. Generally, those that made forecasts less than 2 months into the future tended to be more accurate than those that made forecasts more than 10 weeks into the future. The exceptions were parsimonious statistical models in which the decay of the rate of spread of the pathogen among susceptible individuals was dealt with explicitly. Regarding future outbreaks, the most important lessons for policy makers when using similar modeling results are: i) uncertainty of forecasts will be higher in the beginning of the outbreak, ii) when data are limited, forecasts produced by models designed to inform specific decisions should be used in complimentary fashion for robust decision making - for this outbreak, two statistical models produced the most reliable case counts forecasts, but did not allow to understand the impact of interventions, while several compartmental models could estimate the impact of interventions but required data that was not available; iii) timely collection of essential data is necessary for optimal model use.","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/epirev/mxz013","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxz013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

In 2014/15 an Ebola outbreak of unprecedented dimensions afflicted the West African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. We performed a systematic review of manuscripts that forecasted the outbreak while it was occurring, and derive implications on the ways results could be interpreted by policy-makers. We reviewed 26 manuscripts, published between 2014 and April 2015, that presented forecasts of the West African Ebola outbreak. Forecasted case counts varied widely. An important determinant of forecast accuracy for case counts was how far into the future predictions were made. Generally, those that made forecasts less than 2 months into the future tended to be more accurate than those that made forecasts more than 10 weeks into the future. The exceptions were parsimonious statistical models in which the decay of the rate of spread of the pathogen among susceptible individuals was dealt with explicitly. Regarding future outbreaks, the most important lessons for policy makers when using similar modeling results are: i) uncertainty of forecasts will be higher in the beginning of the outbreak, ii) when data are limited, forecasts produced by models designed to inform specific decisions should be used in complimentary fashion for robust decision making - for this outbreak, two statistical models produced the most reliable case counts forecasts, but did not allow to understand the impact of interventions, while several compartmental models could estimate the impact of interventions but required data that was not available; iii) timely collection of essential data is necessary for optimal model use.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测2014年西非埃博拉疫情。
2014/15年,西非国家利比里亚、几内亚和塞拉利昂爆发了规模空前的埃博拉疫情。我们对在疫情发生时预测疫情的手稿进行了系统回顾,并对决策者解释结果的方式得出了启示。我们回顾了2014年至2015年4月间发表的26篇预测西非埃博拉疫情的论文。预测的病例数差异很大。对病例数的预测准确性的一个重要决定因素是对未来的预测有多远。一般来说,那些预测未来少于2个月的人往往比那些预测未来超过10周的人更准确。例外的是简洁的统计模型,其中明确地处理了病原体在易感个体中传播率的衰减。关于未来的疫情,决策者在使用类似的建模结果时最重要的经验教训是:(1)在疫情开始时,预测的不确定性会更高;(2)当数据有限时,旨在为具体决策提供信息的模型所产生的预测应以互补的方式用于强有力的决策——对于本次疫情,两个统计模型产生了最可靠的病例数预测,但无法了解干预措施的影响;虽然有几个分区模型可以估计干预措施的影响,但需要的数据无法获得;Iii)及时收集必要数据是优化模型使用的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
期刊最新文献
A systematic review of lethal means safety counseling interventions: impacts on safety behaviors and self-directed violence. Instruments for racial health equity: a scoping review of structural racism measurement, 2019-2021. A review of the epidemiology of invasive fungal infections in Asian patients with hematological malignancies (2011-2021). The effect of post-traumatic chondropathy on the functional state of knee joints in athletes during the basketball game. The measurement of racism in health inequities research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1