Gams Matjaž, Marinko Anže, Reščič Nina, Vodopija Aljoša, Vandepitte Sophie, De Smedt Delphine, Javornik Jana, Strle Franc, Janko Vito, Susič David, Anžur Zoja, Luštrek Mitja
Department of Intelligent Systems, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jožef Stefan Postgraduate School, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 2;20(6):e0324232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324232. eCollection 2025.
This paper introduces a uniform evaluation framework for assessing the effectiveness of past non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in managing infectious diseases, taking into account the cultural and social differences between countries. The framework enables quantifying and finding the optimal balance of both the health and socioeconomic impacts of NPIs. The aim is to assist policymakers in understanding which NPIs lead to the optimal balance by highlighting unnecessary costs - the costs that could be avoided while maintaining the same infection rates. To assess the extent of unnecessary socioeconomic consequences experienced by a country during a past epidemic of infectious diseases, we use the following approach. First, we develop a model that predicts the number of infections from NPIs in a country. Second, we estimate the socioeconomic costs (SEC) of the NPIs universally for countries included in the study. Third, we develop a model that prescribes the NPI plans with the optimal trade-off between the number of infections and the SEC. Fourth, we create a model that specifically adjusts each country's SEC. Finally, we provide additional analysis to increase comprehension of the effects of NPIs. Demonstrated through an analysis of COVID-19 pandemic responses in 17 countries, the study offers a systematic presentation of the framework and a concrete examination of the integrated effects of NPIs. It provides insights into interventions' direct and indirect consequences, offering guidance for future epidemic responses. The framework enables a systematic understanding of the effects of the NPIs applied, acknowledging the national diversity in health measure acceptance and implementation. This allows for fair analysis across countries, identifying and displaying the economic, social, and health-related costs of suboptimal NPI strategies, i.e., unnecessary costs. The framework is applicable for any infectious disease, NPIs, or country, assuming the medical interventions are similar, e.g., timing and amount of vaccination.
本文介绍了一个统一的评估框架,用于评估过去非药物干预措施(NPIs)在管理传染病方面的有效性,同时考虑到各国之间的文化和社会差异。该框架能够量化并找到NPIs在健康和社会经济影响方面的最佳平衡。目的是通过突出不必要的成本——即在保持相同感染率的情况下可以避免的成本,协助政策制定者了解哪些NPIs能带来最佳平衡。为了评估一个国家在过去传染病流行期间所经历的不必要社会经济后果的程度,我们采用以下方法。首先,我们开发一个模型来预测一个国家中NPIs导致的感染数量。其次,我们普遍估计研究中所涵盖国家的NPIs的社会经济成本(SEC)。第三,我们开发一个模型,规定在感染数量和SEC之间具有最佳权衡的NPIs计划。第四,我们创建一个专门调整每个国家SEC的模型。最后,我们提供额外的分析,以增强对NPIs效果的理解。通过对17个国家应对新冠疫情的分析表明,该研究系统地展示了该框架,并具体考察了NPIs的综合效果。它提供了对干预措施直接和间接后果的见解,为未来的疫情应对提供了指导。该框架能够系统地理解所应用的NPIs的效果,承认各国在健康措施接受度和实施方面的多样性。这使得能够在各国之间进行公平分析,识别并展示次优NPIs策略的经济、社会和健康相关成本,即不必要的成本。假设医疗干预措施相似,例如疫苗接种的时间和数量,该框架适用于任何传染病、NPIs或国家。