Comparing Strategies to Control Influenza Spread
Author Information
Author(s): Marathe Achla, Lewis Bryan, Barrett Christopher, Chen Jiangzhuo, Marathe Madhav, Eubank Stephen, Ma Yifei
Primary Institution: Virginia Tech
Hypothesis
How do bottom-up and top-down strategies compare in controlling the spread of influenza-like illness?
Conclusion
The bottom-up strategy is more effective than top-down strategies in controlling the spread of influenza-like illness.
Supporting Evidence
- The bottom-up strategy significantly reduced the attack rate compared to top-down strategies.
- Antivirals were more effective under the bottom-up strategy than under top-down strategies.
- The Block strategy required more resources but was less effective than the bottom-up approach.
- Vaccination effectiveness was delayed, impacting the performance of top-down strategies.
- Individual actions based on local information led to better outcomes than public health interventions.
Takeaway
This study found that when people take action based on their own observations of illness in their friends, it works better than when health officials try to control the spread of disease.
Methodology
The study used a synthetic social network model of Miami to simulate the spread of an influenza-like illness and compared three intervention strategies.
Potential Biases
The reliance on a synthetic model may not capture all real-world complexities of disease spread.
Limitations
The study assumes unlimited availability of vaccines and antivirals, which may not reflect real-world scenarios.
Participant Demographics
The model represents a synthetic population of approximately 2.1 million people in Miami.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website