适应性新冠肺炎缓解策略:触发阈值、响应时间和有效性之间的权衡。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2023-10-11 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683231202716
Erinn C Sanstead, Zongbo Li, Shannon B McKearnan, Szu-Yu Zoe Kao, Pamela J Mink, Alisha Baines Simon, Karen M Kuntz, Stefan Gildemeister, Eva A Enns
{"title":"适应性新冠肺炎缓解策略:触发阈值、响应时间和有效性之间的权衡。","authors":"Erinn C Sanstead, Zongbo Li, Shannon B McKearnan, Szu-Yu Zoe Kao, Pamela J Mink, Alisha Baines Simon, Karen M Kuntz, Stefan Gildemeister, Eva A Enns","doi":"10.1177/23814683231202716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To support proactive decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic, mathematical models have been leveraged to identify surveillance indicator thresholds at which strengthening nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary to protect health care capacity. Understanding tradeoffs between different adaptive COVID-19 response components is important when designing strategies that balance public preference and public health goals. <b>Methods.</b> We considered 3 components of an adaptive COVID-19 response: 1) the threshold at which to implement the NPI, 2) the time needed to implement the NPI, and 3) the effectiveness of the NPI. Using a compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission calibrated to Minnesota state data, we evaluated different adaptive policies in terms of the peak number of hospitalizations and the time spent with the NPI in force. Scenarios were compared with a reference strategy, in which an NPI with an 80% contact reduction was triggered when new weekly hospitalizations surpassed 8 per 100,000 population, with a 7-day implementation period. Assumptions were varied in sensitivity analysis. <b>Results.</b> All adaptive response scenarios substantially reduced peak hospitalizations relative to no response. Among adaptive response scenarios, slower NPI implementation resulted in somewhat higher peak hospitalization and a longer time spent under the NPIs than the reference scenario. A stronger NPI response resulted in slightly less time with the NPIs in place and smaller hospitalization peak. A higher trigger threshold resulted in greater peak hospitalizations with little reduction in the length of time under the NPIs. <b>Conclusions.</b> An adaptive NPI response can substantially reduce infection circulation and prevent health care capacity from being exceeded. However, population preferences as well as the feasibility and timeliness of compliance with reenacting NPIs should inform response design.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This study uses a mathematical model to compare different adaptive nonpharmaceutical intervention (NPI) strategies for COVID-19 management across 3 dimensions: threshold when the NPI should be implemented, time it takes to implement the NPI, and the effectiveness of the NPI.All adaptive NPI response scenarios considered substantially reduced peak hospitalizations compared with no response.Slower NPI implementation results in a somewhat higher peak hospitalization and longer time spent with the NPI in place but may make an adaptive strategy more feasible by allowing the population sufficient time to prepare for changing restrictions.A stronger, more effective NPI response results in a modest reduction in the time spent under the NPIs and slightly lower peak hospitalizations.A higher threshold for triggering the NPI delays the time at which the NPI starts but results in a higher peak hospitalization and does not substantially reduce the time the NPI remains in force.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"8 2","pages":"23814683231202716"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/77/10.1177_23814683231202716.PMC10568986.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adaptive COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies: Tradeoffs between Trigger Thresholds, Response Timing, and Effectiveness.\",\"authors\":\"Erinn C Sanstead, Zongbo Li, Shannon B McKearnan, Szu-Yu Zoe Kao, Pamela J Mink, Alisha Baines Simon, Karen M Kuntz, Stefan Gildemeister, Eva A Enns\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23814683231202716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To support proactive decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic, mathematical models have been leveraged to identify surveillance indicator thresholds at which strengthening nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary to protect health care capacity. Understanding tradeoffs between different adaptive COVID-19 response components is important when designing strategies that balance public preference and public health goals. <b>Methods.</b> We considered 3 components of an adaptive COVID-19 response: 1) the threshold at which to implement the NPI, 2) the time needed to implement the NPI, and 3) the effectiveness of the NPI. Using a compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission calibrated to Minnesota state data, we evaluated different adaptive policies in terms of the peak number of hospitalizations and the time spent with the NPI in force. Scenarios were compared with a reference strategy, in which an NPI with an 80% contact reduction was triggered when new weekly hospitalizations surpassed 8 per 100,000 population, with a 7-day implementation period. Assumptions were varied in sensitivity analysis. <b>Results.</b> All adaptive response scenarios substantially reduced peak hospitalizations relative to no response. Among adaptive response scenarios, slower NPI implementation resulted in somewhat higher peak hospitalization and a longer time spent under the NPIs than the reference scenario. A stronger NPI response resulted in slightly less time with the NPIs in place and smaller hospitalization peak. A higher trigger threshold resulted in greater peak hospitalizations with little reduction in the length of time under the NPIs. <b>Conclusions.</b> An adaptive NPI response can substantially reduce infection circulation and prevent health care capacity from being exceeded. However, population preferences as well as the feasibility and timeliness of compliance with reenacting NPIs should inform response design.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This study uses a mathematical model to compare different adaptive nonpharmaceutical intervention (NPI) strategies for COVID-19 management across 3 dimensions: threshold when the NPI should be implemented, time it takes to implement the NPI, and the effectiveness of the NPI.All adaptive NPI response scenarios considered substantially reduced peak hospitalizations compared with no response.Slower NPI implementation results in a somewhat higher peak hospitalization and longer time spent with the NPI in place but may make an adaptive strategy more feasible by allowing the population sufficient time to prepare for changing restrictions.A stronger, more effective NPI response results in a modest reduction in the time spent under the NPIs and slightly lower peak hospitalizations.A higher threshold for triggering the NPI delays the time at which the NPI starts but results in a higher peak hospitalization and does not substantially reduce the time the NPI remains in force.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"23814683231202716\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/96/77/10.1177_23814683231202716.PMC10568986.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683231202716\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683231202716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景为了支持新冠肺炎大流行期间的积极决策,利用数学模型来确定监测指标阈值,在该阈值下,加强非药物干预措施(NPI)对于保护医疗保健能力是必要的。在设计平衡公众偏好和公共卫生目标的战略时,了解不同适应性新冠肺炎应对组件之间的权衡非常重要。方法。我们考虑了适应性新冠肺炎应对的3个组成部分:1)实施NPI的阈值,2)实施NPI所需的时间,以及3)NPI的有效性。使用根据明尼苏达州数据校准的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型传播的分区模型,我们评估了不同的适应政策,包括住院人数峰值和NPI生效时间。将情景与参考策略进行比较,在参考策略中,当每周新增住院人数超过十万分之八时,触发接触减少80%的NPI,实施期为7天。敏感性分析中的假设各不相同。后果与无反应相比,所有适应性反应情景显著降低了住院高峰。在适应性反应情景中,与参考情景相比,较慢的NPI实施导致较高的住院高峰和更长的NPI时间。更强的NPI反应导致NPI到位的时间略短,住院高峰也较小。较高的触发阈值导致更大的住院高峰,而NPI下的时间长度几乎没有减少。结论。适应性NPI反应可以显著减少感染循环,并防止超出医疗保健能力。然而,人群偏好以及重新参与NPI的可行性和及时性应为响应设计提供信息。要点:本研究使用数学模型对新冠肺炎管理的不同适应性非药物干预(NPI)策略进行了3个维度的比较:应实施NPI的阈值、实施NPI所需的时间和NPI的有效性。与无反应相比,所有适应性NPI反应情景都考虑了显著降低的住院高峰。较慢的NPI实施会导致更高的住院高峰和更长的NPI时间,但通过让人群有足够的时间为不断变化的限制做好准备,可能会使适应性策略更加可行。更强、更有效的NPI反应会适度减少在NPI下花费的时间,并略微降低住院高峰。触发NPI的更高阈值延迟了NPI开始的时间,但导致更高的峰值住院,并且不会显著减少NPI保持有效的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Adaptive COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies: Tradeoffs between Trigger Thresholds, Response Timing, and Effectiveness.

Background. To support proactive decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic, mathematical models have been leveraged to identify surveillance indicator thresholds at which strengthening nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is necessary to protect health care capacity. Understanding tradeoffs between different adaptive COVID-19 response components is important when designing strategies that balance public preference and public health goals. Methods. We considered 3 components of an adaptive COVID-19 response: 1) the threshold at which to implement the NPI, 2) the time needed to implement the NPI, and 3) the effectiveness of the NPI. Using a compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission calibrated to Minnesota state data, we evaluated different adaptive policies in terms of the peak number of hospitalizations and the time spent with the NPI in force. Scenarios were compared with a reference strategy, in which an NPI with an 80% contact reduction was triggered when new weekly hospitalizations surpassed 8 per 100,000 population, with a 7-day implementation period. Assumptions were varied in sensitivity analysis. Results. All adaptive response scenarios substantially reduced peak hospitalizations relative to no response. Among adaptive response scenarios, slower NPI implementation resulted in somewhat higher peak hospitalization and a longer time spent under the NPIs than the reference scenario. A stronger NPI response resulted in slightly less time with the NPIs in place and smaller hospitalization peak. A higher trigger threshold resulted in greater peak hospitalizations with little reduction in the length of time under the NPIs. Conclusions. An adaptive NPI response can substantially reduce infection circulation and prevent health care capacity from being exceeded. However, population preferences as well as the feasibility and timeliness of compliance with reenacting NPIs should inform response design.

Highlights: This study uses a mathematical model to compare different adaptive nonpharmaceutical intervention (NPI) strategies for COVID-19 management across 3 dimensions: threshold when the NPI should be implemented, time it takes to implement the NPI, and the effectiveness of the NPI.All adaptive NPI response scenarios considered substantially reduced peak hospitalizations compared with no response.Slower NPI implementation results in a somewhat higher peak hospitalization and longer time spent with the NPI in place but may make an adaptive strategy more feasible by allowing the population sufficient time to prepare for changing restrictions.A stronger, more effective NPI response results in a modest reduction in the time spent under the NPIs and slightly lower peak hospitalizations.A higher threshold for triggering the NPI delays the time at which the NPI starts but results in a higher peak hospitalization and does not substantially reduce the time the NPI remains in force.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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