Modelling outbreak response impact in human vaccine-preventable diseases: A systematic review of differences in practices between collaboration types before COVID-19

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Epidemics Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.epidem.2023.100720
James M. Azam , Xiaoxi Pang , Elisha B. Are , Juliet R.C. Pulliam , Matthew J. Ferrari
{"title":"Modelling outbreak response impact in human vaccine-preventable diseases: A systematic review of differences in practices between collaboration types before COVID-19","authors":"James M. Azam ,&nbsp;Xiaoxi Pang ,&nbsp;Elisha B. Are ,&nbsp;Juliet R.C. Pulliam ,&nbsp;Matthew J. Ferrari","doi":"10.1016/j.epidem.2023.100720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background:</h3><p>Outbreak response modelling often involves collaboration among academics, and experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices between two collaboration types. We complemented this with a mini comparison of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a veterinary disease that is controllable by vaccination.</p></div><div><h3>Methods:</h3><p>We searched three databases for modelling studies that assessed the impact of an outbreak response. We extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), location studied, and whether at least one author was affiliated to the studied location. We also extracted the outcomes and interventions studied, and model characteristics. Included 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 and overall differences with FMD collaboration practices.</p></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><p>Human VPDs formed 227 of 252 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 affiliated to an institution 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 with an affiliation to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion:</h3><p>The 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49206,"journal":{"name":"Epidemics","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100720"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436523000567/pdfft?md5=3026204558e1fdbce504ec75af88ca46&pid=1-s2.0-S1755436523000567-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436523000567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:

Outbreak response modelling often involves collaboration among academics, and experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices between two collaboration types. We complemented this with a mini comparison of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a veterinary disease that is controllable by vaccination.

Methods:

We searched three databases for modelling studies that assessed the impact of an outbreak response. We extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), location studied, and whether at least one author was affiliated to the studied location. We also extracted the outcomes and interventions studied, and model characteristics. Included 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 and overall differences with FMD collaboration practices.

Results:

Human VPDs formed 227 of 252 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 affiliated to an institution 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 with an affiliation to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation.

Conclusion:

The 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.

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
人类疫苗可预防疾病的疫情应对影响建模:新冠肺炎前合作类型之间实践差异的系统回顾。
背景:疫情应对建模通常涉及政府和非政府组织的学者、专家之间的合作。我们对人类疫苗可预防疾病(VPD)爆发的建模研究进行了系统回顾,以确定两种合作类型之间的建模实践模式。我们对口蹄疫(FMD)进行了小型比较,这是一种可以通过接种疫苗控制的兽医疾病。方法:我们搜索了三个数据库,用于评估疫情应对影响的建模研究。我们提取了作者隶属类型(学术机构、政府和非政府组织)、研究地点以及是否至少有一位作者隶属于研究地点的数据。我们还提取了研究的结果和干预措施,以及模型特征。纳入的研究分为两种合作类型:纯学术型(只有学术背景的论文)和混合型(所有其他组合),以帮助调查人类疾病文献中合作类型之间的建模模式差异以及FMD合作实践的总体差异。结果:252项纳入研究中有227项为人类VPD。纯粹的学术合作主导了人类疾病研究(56%)。值得注意的是,混合合作在过去七年(2013-2019年)有所增加。大多数研究都有一位隶属于所研究国家某机构的作者(75.2%),但这在混合合作中更有可能。与人类VPD相比,混合合作在FMD文献中占主导地位(56%)。此外,FMD研究通常有一位与研究国家有关联的作者(92%),并使用复杂的模型设计,包括随机性、模型参数化和验证。结论:在过去七年中,混合合作研究的增加可能表明疫情应对决策模型的使用有所增加。我们鼓励学术机构和非学术机构之间进行更多的混合合作,并鼓励当地附属作者的参与,以帮助确保研究符合当地情况。
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
Epidemics
Epidemics INFECTIOUS DISEASES-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
7.90%
发文量
92
审稿时长
140 days
期刊介绍: Epidemics publishes papers on infectious disease dynamics in the broadest sense. Its scope covers both within-host dynamics of infectious agents and dynamics at the population level, particularly the interaction between the two. Areas of emphasis include: spread, transmission, persistence, implications and population dynamics of infectious diseases; population and public health as well as policy aspects of control and prevention; dynamics at the individual level; interaction with the environment, ecology and evolution of infectious diseases, as well as population genetics of infectious agents.
期刊最新文献
Forecasting SARS-CoV-2 epidemic dynamic in Poland with the pDyn agent-based model Optimizing spatial distribution of wastewater-based epidemiology to advance health equity Building in-house capabilities in health agencies and outsourcing to academia or industry: Considerations for effective infectious disease modelling. Direct and indirect effects of hepatitis B vaccination in four low- and middle-income countries Modelling plausible scenarios for the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant from early-stage surveillance
×
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