A novel framework for evaluating the impact of individual decision-making on public health outcomes and its potential application to study antiviral treatment collection during an influenza pandemic

Autoři: Sudhir Venkatesan aff001;  Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam aff001;  Peer-Olaf Siebers aff002
Působiště autorů: Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom aff001;  School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223946


The importance of accounting for social and behavioural processes when studying public health emergencies has been well-recognised. For infectious disease outbreaks in particular, several methods of incorporating individual behaviour have been put forward, but very few are based on established psychological frameworks. In this paper, we develop a decision framework based on the COM-B model of behaviour change to investigate the impact of individual decision-making on public health outcomes. We demonstrate the application of our decision framework in a proof-of-concept case study based on the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in the UK. The National Pandemic Flu Service (NPFS) was set up in England during the pandemic as a means to provide antiviral (AV) treatment to clinically ill patients with influenza-like illness, via telephone calls or internet screening, thereby averting the need to see a doctor. The evaluated patients based on a clinical algorithm and authorised AV drugs for collection via community collection points. We applied our behavioural framework to evaluate the influence of human behaviour on AV collection rates, and subsequently to identify interventions that could help improve AV collection rates. Our model was validated against empirically collected pandemic data from 2009 in the UK. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to identify potentially effective interventions by varying model parameters. Using our behavioural framework in a proof-of-concept case study, we found that interventions geared towards increasing people’s ‘Capability’ and ‘Opportunity’ are likely to result in increased AV collection, potentially resulting in fewer influenza-related hospitalisations and deaths. We note that important behavioural data from public health emergencies are largely scarce. Insights obtained from models such as ours can, not only be very useful in designing healthcare interventions, but also inform future data collection.

Klíčová slova:

Agent-based modeling – Behavior – Epidemiology – Health care policy – Influenza – Public and occupational health – Simulation and modeling – Infectious disease modeling


1. Funk S, Bansal S, Bauch CT, Eames KT, Edmunds WJ, Galvani AP, et al. Nine challenges in incorporating the dynamics of behaviour in infectious diseases models. Epidemics. 2015;10:21–5. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2014.09.005 25843377

2. Funk S, Salathé M, Jansen VAA. Modelling the influence of human behaviour on the spread of infectious diseases: a review. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2010.

3. Verelst F, Willem L, Beutels P. Behavioural change models for infectious disease transmission: a systematic review (2010–2015). Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2016;13(125).

4. Weiss G. Multiagent Systems. Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents. MIT Press; 2013.

5. Ferguson N. Capturing human behaviour. Nature. 2007;446:733. doi: 10.1038/446733a 17429381

6. Durham DP, Casman EA. Incorporating individual health-protective decisions into disease transmission models: a mathematical framework. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2011. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0608

7. van Boven M, Klinkenberg D, Pen I, Weissing FJ, Heesterbeek H. Self-Interest versus Group-Interest in Antiviral Control. PLOS ONE. 2008;3(2):e1558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001558 19050769

8. Badham J, Gilbert N. TELL ME design: Protective behaviour during an epidemic. CRESS Working Paper 2015;2.

9. Leppin A, Aro AR. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: theoretical foundations of current empirical research. International journal of behavioral medicine. 2009;16(1):7–29. doi: 10.1007/s12529-008-9002-8 19214752

10. Weinstein ND. Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2007;33(1):1–10. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm3301_1 17291165

11. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science. 2011;6(1):42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 21513547

12. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655 18824488

13. Hine D. The 2009 Influenza Pandemic: An independent review of the UK response to the2009 influenza pandemic. 2010.

14. Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Team. The National Pandemic Flu Service: an evaluation. Technical Report 15652, UK Department of Health 2011, 2011.

15. Dobson J, Whitley RJ, Pocock S, Monto AS. Oseltamivir treatment for influenza in adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. 2015;385(9979):1729–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62449-1.

16. Muthuri SG, Venkatesan S, Myles PR, Leonardi-Bee J, Al Khuwaitir TSA, Al Mamun A, et al. Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients admitted to hospital with influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2014;2(5):395–404. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70041-4 24815805

17. Venkatesan S, Myles PR, Leonardi-Bee J, Muthuri SG, Al Masri M, Andrews N, et al. Impact of Outpatient Neuraminidase Inhibitor Treatment in Patients Infected With Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 at High Risk of Hospitalization: An Individual Participant Data Metaanalysis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2017;64(10):1328–34. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix127 28199524

18. Venkatesan S, Carias C, Biggerstaff M, Campbell AP, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Kahn E, et al. Antiviral treatment for outpatient use during an influenza pandemic: a decision tree model of outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness. Journal of Public Health. 2018:fdy108–fdy. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy108 29955851

19. Rubinstein H, Marcu A, Yardley L, Michie S. Public preferences for vaccination and antiviral medicines under different pandemic flu outbreak scenarios. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1541-8 25884522

20. Maiman LA, Becker MH. The health belief model: Origins and correlates in psychological theory. Health Education Monographs. 1974;2(4):336–53.

21. Kraemer J. Quantitation of social variables in epidemics: a computational modeling approach. Master's thesis at Bloomberg School of Public Health. 2006.

22. Funk S, Gilad E, Watkins C, Jansen VAA. The spread of awareness and its impact on epidemic outbreaks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(16):6872.

23. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA, editors. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? Boston, MA: Springer US; 1980. p. 181–216.

24. Haroon SMM, Barbosa GP, Saunders PJ. The determinants of health-seeking behaviour during the A/H1N1 influenza pandemic: an ecological study. Journal of Public Health. 2011;33(4):503–10. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr029 21460370

25. Quinn SC, Kumar S, Freimuth VS, Musa D, Casteneda-Angarita N, Kidwell K. Racial Disparities in Exposure, Susceptibility, and Access to Health Care in the US H1N1 Influenza Pandemic. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;101(2):285–93. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.188029 21164098

26. Payne RA. UK indices of multiple deprivation-a way to make comparisons across constituent countries easier. Health. 2012;4(13.5):13.5.

27. Rutter P, Mytton O, Ellis B, Donaldson L. Access to the NHS by telephone and Internet during an influenza pandemic: an observational study. BMJ open. 2014;4(2):e004174. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004174 24491382

28. Mossong J, Hens N, Jit M, Beutels P, Auranen K, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. PLoS medicine. 2008;5(3):e74. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074 18366252

29. Wu DBC, Chaiyakunapruk N, Pratoomsoot C, Lee KKC, Chong HY, Nelson RE, et al. Cost-utility analysis of antiviral use under pandemic influenza using a novel approach–linking pharmacology, epidemiology and heath economics. Epidemiology and Infection. 2018;146(4):496–507. Epub 02/15. doi: 10.1017/S0950268818000158 29446343

30. Cori A, Valleron AJ, Carrat F, Scalia Tomba G, Thomas G, Boëlle PY. Estimating influenza latency and infectious period durations using viral excretion data. Epidemics. 2012;4(3):132–8. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2012.06.001 22939310

31. McLean E, Pebody R. Epidemiological report of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in the UK, April 2009-May 2010. Epidemiological report of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in the UK, April 2009-May 2010. 2010.

32. Ibuka Y, Chapman GB, Meyers LA, Li M, Galvani AP. The dynamics of risk perceptions and precautionary behavior in response to 2009 (H1N1) pandemic influenza. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2010;10(1):296. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-296 20946662

33. Bults M, Beaujean DJ, de Zwart O, Kok G, van Empelen P, van Steenbergen JE, et al. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-2 21199571

34. Fagiolo G, Moneta A, Windrum P. A Critical Guide to Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics: Methodologies, Procedures, and Open Problems. Computational Economics. 2007;30(3):195–226. doi: 10.1007/s10614-007-9104-4

35. Werker C, Brenner T. Empirical calibration of simulation models. Papers on Economics and Evolution, 2004.

36. Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Nicholson KG. Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used in the UK during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. Journal of Clinical Virology. 2011;50(2):183. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2010.10.019 21112812

37. Public Health England. Pandemic Influenza Strategic Framework. 2014.

38. Australian Government. Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. In: Health Do, editor. 2014.

39. Durham DP, Casman EA, Albert SM. Deriving behavior model parameters from survey data: self‐protective behavior adoption during the 2009–2010 influenza a (H1N1) pandemic. Risk Analysis. 2012;32(12):2020–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01823.x 22563796

40. Karimi E, Schmitt K, Akgunduz A. Effect of individual protective behaviors on influenza transmission: an agent-based model. Health Care Management Science. 2015;18(3):318–33. doi: 10.1007/s10729-014-9310-2 25578039

41. Yang Y, Atkinson PM. Individual Space–Time Activity-Based Model: A Model for the Simulation of Airborne Infectious-Disease Transmission by Activity-Bundle Simulation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2008;35(1):80–99. doi: 10.1068/b32162

42. Heath B, Hill R, Ciarallo F. A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2009;12(4):9.

43. Sargent RG, editor Verification and validation of simulation models. Simulation Conference (WSC), Proceedings of the 2009 Winter; 2009: IEEE.

44. Ghani A, Baguelin M, Griffin J, Flasche S, van Hoek AJ, Cauchemez S, et al. The Early Transmission Dynamics of H1N1pdm Influenza in the United Kingdom. PLoS Currents. 2010;1:RRN1130. doi: 10.1371/currents.RRN1130 PMC2780827. 20029668

45. Massad E, Burattini MN, Ortega NR. Fuzzy logic and measles vaccination: designing a control strategy. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1999;28(3):550–7. doi: 10.1093/ije/28.3.550 10405863

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10