Article

Disease mitigation measures in the control of pandemic influenza

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism (Impact Factor: 1.94). 02/2006; 4(4):366-75. DOI: 10.1089/bsp.2006.4.366
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The threat of an influenza pandemic has alarmed countries around the globe and given rise to an intense interest in disease mitigation measures. This article reviews what is known about the effectiveness and practical feasibility of a range of actions that might be taken in attempts to lessen the number of cases and deaths resulting from an influenza pandemic. The article also discusses potential adverse second- and third-order effects of mitigation actions that decision makers must take into account. Finally, the article summarizes the authors' judgments of the likely effectiveness and likely adverse consequences of the range of disease mitigation measures and suggests priorities and practical actions to be taken.

0 Followers
 · 
136 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epidemics of infectious diseases are among the largest threats to the quality of life and the economic and social well-being of developing countries. The arsenal of measures against such epidemics is well-established, but costly and insufficient to mitigate their impact. In this paper, we argue that mobile technology adds a powerful weapon to this arsenal, because (a) mobile devices endow us with the unprecedented ability to measure and model the detailed behavioral patterns of the affected population, and (b) they enable the delivery of personalized behavioral recommendations to individuals in real time. We combine these two ideas and propose several strategies to generate such recommendations from mobility patterns. The goal of each strategy is a large reduction in infections, with a small impact on the normal course of daily life. We evaluate these strategies over the Orange D4D dataset and show the benefit of mobile micro-measures, even if only a fraction of the population participates. These preliminary results demonstrate the potential of mobile technology to complement other measures like vaccination and quarantines against disease epidemics.
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus subtype (H1N1) pandemic had a large impact in the United States of America (USA), causing an estimated 192,000 to 398,000 hospitalizations and 8,720 to 18,050 deaths between April 2009 and mid-March 2010. Recent research on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic has largely focused on individual, non-spatial demographic characterizations (e.g. age and race/ethnicity) associated with H1N1 hospitalizations. Broader ecological factors such as transportation use, land use and other socioeconomic factors are important aspects of influenza studies that have not been empirically examined. This research explores and identifies ecological factors associated with 2009 H1N1 pandemic hospitalization rates. We conducted a spatial regression analysis of county level hospitalization rates from 3 April to 15 September, 2009 obtained via the California Department of Public Health. Hospitalization rates were found to be spatially dependent. Public transportation usage rates and agricultural land use proportions were significant environmental factors positively related to hospitalization rates. Consistent with public health official's assumptions and existing evidence, county percentages of persons less than 18 years of age were positively associated with hospitalization. These findings help to clarify the limited consensus and dubious evidence on the role of broader ecological factors associated with pandemic influenza. A better understanding of the ecological risk factors associated with hospitalizations should also benefit public health officials with respect to their work aiming at improving emergency supply allocation and non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies in the context of an influenza pandemic.
    Geospatial health 11/2011; 6(1):95-105. DOI:10.4081/gh.2011.161 · 1.00 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from