Concurrent assessment of epidemiological and operational uncertainties for optimal outbreak control: Ebola as a case study

Abstract

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.

COVID-19 reopening strategies at the county level in the face of uncertainty: Multiple Models for Outbreak Decision Support

“…1). The projections from the second round of modeling are then used to generate aggregate results under different interventions that encapsulate scientific uncertainty about epidemiological processes and management interventions (Li et al 2019). We stress that this process is designed primarily to inform decision making, rather than to provide quantitative projections of epidemic trajectory (as in ongoing forecasting challenges; Ray et al submitted), though such results are also obtained.…”

Causes of delayed outbreak responses and their impacts on epidemic spread

“…The direction and magnitude of forecast bias may lead to sub-optimal management recommendations when comparing culling-based interventions to, for example, frequently debated vaccination-based interventions [33,60]. The degree to which these biases will result in incorrect management recommendations is beyond the scope of this analysis; however, this work highlights the importance of accounting for operational, as well as epidemiological, uncertainties and their potential impact on management recommendations as well as epidemic forecasts [61]. The measures our simulation used for predicting management outcomes (i.e.…”

How certain are we? Development of an ensemble based framework for assessing astronaut cancer risks from space radiation

“…Additionally, models that account for the known uncertainties not currently represented in risk projections (e.g., gray boxes of Fig 5) will be needed to better inform risk-based decision making as mission durations and doses considerably increase beyond our current ISS experience base. Future Value of Information (VoI) analyses and Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) methods can be used to guide research to understand the potential value of resolving uncertainty between model projections [Li et al 2019].…”