1 Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
2 State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-ecosystems, and College of Pastoral, Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University , People's Republic of China.
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Jun 26;286(1905):20190774. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0774. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
Determining how best to manage an infectious disease outbreak may be hindered by both epidemiological uncertainty (i.e. about epidemiological processes) and operational uncertainty (i.e. about the effectiveness of candidate interventions). However, these two uncertainties are rarely addressed concurrently in epidemic studies. We present an approach to simultaneously address both sources of uncertainty, to elucidate which source most impedes decision-making. In the case of the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, epidemiological uncertainty is represented by a large ensemble of published models. Operational uncertainty about three classes of interventions is assessed for a wide range of potential intervention effectiveness. We ranked each intervention by caseload reduction in each model, initially assuming an unlimited budget as a counterfactual. We then assessed the influence of three candidate cost functions relating intervention effectiveness and cost for different budget levels. The improvement in management outcomes to be gained by resolving uncertainty is generally high in this study; appropriate information gain could reduce expected caseload by more than 50%. The ranking of interventions is jointly determined by the underlying epidemiological process, the effectiveness of the interventions and the size of the budget. An epidemiologically effective intervention might not be optimal if its costs outweigh its epidemiological benefit. Under higher-budget conditions, resolution of epidemiological uncertainty is most valuable. When budgets are tight, however, operational and epidemiological uncertainty are equally important. Overall, our study demonstrates that significant reductions in caseload could result from a careful examination of both epidemiological and operational uncertainties within the same modelling structure. This approach can be applied to decision-making for the management of other diseases for which multiple models and multiple interventions are available.
确定如何最好地管理传染病疫情爆发可能会受到流行病学不确定性(即关于流行病学过程)和操作不确定性(即关于候选干预措施的有效性)的阻碍。然而,在流行性病学研究中,这两种不确定性很少被同时考虑到。我们提出了一种同时解决这两个来源不确定性的方法,以阐明哪个来源对决策的阻碍最大。在 2014 年西非埃博拉疫情爆发的情况下,流行病学不确定性由大量已发表的模型来表示。对三种干预措施类别的操作不确定性在广泛的潜在干预效果范围内进行评估。我们根据每个模型中的病例减少量对每种干预措施进行排名,最初假设无限制的预算作为反事实情况。然后,我们评估了三种候选成本函数对不同预算水平的干预效果和成本的影响。在本研究中,通过解决不确定性获得的管理结果的改善通常很高;适当的信息获取可以使预期的病例数减少 50%以上。干预措施的排名是由潜在的流行病学过程、干预措施的有效性和预算的大小共同决定的。如果干预措施的成本超过其流行病学效益,那么即使其在流行病学上有效,也不一定是最优的。在高预算条件下,解决流行病学不确定性的价值最大。然而,当预算紧张时,操作和流行病学不确定性同样重要。总体而言,我们的研究表明,通过在同一建模结构内仔细检查流行病学和操作不确定性,可以显著减少病例数。这种方法可以应用于其他具有多种模型和多种干预措施的疾病的管理决策。