schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Comparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model

Abstract Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST ) has been developed to estimate the impact of health interventions and can consider multiple interventions simultaneously. Given its increasing usage by donor organizations and national program planner, we compare the LiST measles model to the widely... Full description

Journal Title: BMC Public Health 2011, Vol.11(Suppl 3), p.S33
Main Author: Chen, Wei-Ju
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: E-ISSN: 14712458 ; DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S33
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: proquest902202469
title: Comparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model
format: Article
creator:
  • Chen, Wei-Ju
subjects:
  • Child Mortality–Mortality
  • Child, Preschool–Prevention & Control
  • Humans–Prevention & Control
  • Immunization–Prevention & Control
  • Infant–Prevention & Control
  • Infant Mortality–Prevention & Control
  • Measles–Prevention & Control
  • Measles–Prevention & Control
  • Measles Vaccine–Prevention & Control
  • Models, Theoretical–Prevention & Control
  • World Health Organization–Prevention & Control
  • Measles
  • Decision Making
  • Fatalities
  • Vaccines
  • Children & Youth
  • Measles Vaccine
  • World Health Organization
ispartof: BMC Public Health, 2011, Vol.11(Suppl 3), p.S33
description: Abstract Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST ) has been developed to estimate the impact of health interventions and can consider multiple interventions simultaneously. Given its increasing usage by donor organizations and national program planner, we compare the LiST measles model to the widely used World Health Organization's Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (WHO/IVB) measles model which is used to produce estimates serving as a major indicator of monitoring country measles epidemics and the progress of measles control. Methods: We analyzed the WHO/IVB models and the LiST measles model and identified components and assumptions held in each model. We contrasted the important components, and compared results from the two models by applying historical measles containing vaccine (MCV) coverages and the default values of all parameters set in the models. We also conducted analyses following a hypothetical scenario to understand how both models performed when the proportion of population protected by MCV declined to zero percent in short time period. Results: The WHO/IVB measles model and the LiST measles model structures differ: the former is a mixed model which applies surveillance data adjusted for reporting completeness for countries with good disease surveillance system and applies a natural history model for countries with poorer disease control program and surveillance system, and the latter is a cohort model incorporating country-specific cause-of-death (CoD) profiles among children under-five. The trends of estimates of the two models are similar, but the estimates of the first year are different in most of the countries included in the analysis. The two models are comparable if we adjust the measles CoD in the LiST to produce the same baseline estimates. In addition, we used the models to estimate the potential impact of stopping using measles vaccine over a 7-year period. The WHO/IVB model produced similar estimates to the LiST model with adjusted CoD. But the LiST model produced low estimates for countries with very low or eliminated measles infection that may be inappropriate. Conclusions: The study presents methodological and quantitative comparisons between the WHO/IVB and the LiST measles models that highlights differences in model structures and may help users to better interpret and contrast estimates of the measles death from the two models. The major differences are resulted from the usage of case-fatality rate (CFR)
language: eng
source:
identifier: E-ISSN: 14712458 ; DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S33
fulltext: fulltext_linktorsrc
issn:
  • 14712458
  • 1471-2458
url: Link


@attributes
ID554420891
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid902202469
sourceidproquest
recordidTN_proquest902202469
sourcesystemOther
pqid902202469
display
typearticle
titleComparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model
creatorChen, Wei-Ju
ispartofBMC Public Health, 2011, Vol.11(Suppl 3), p.S33
identifierE-ISSN: 14712458 ; DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S33
subject
descriptionAbstract Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST ) has been developed to estimate the impact of health interventions and can consider multiple interventions simultaneously. Given its increasing usage by donor organizations and national program planner, we compare the LiST measles model to the widely used World Health Organization's Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (WHO/IVB) measles model which is used to produce estimates serving as a major indicator of monitoring country measles epidemics and the progress of measles control. Methods: We analyzed the WHO/IVB models and the LiST measles model and identified components and assumptions held in each model. We contrasted the important components, and compared results from the two models by applying historical measles containing vaccine (MCV) coverages and the default values of all parameters set in the models. We also conducted analyses following a hypothetical scenario to understand how both models performed when the proportion of population protected by MCV declined to zero percent in short time period. Results: The WHO/IVB measles model and the LiST measles model structures differ: the former is a mixed model which applies surveillance data adjusted for reporting completeness for countries with good disease surveillance system and applies a natural history model for countries with poorer disease control program and surveillance system, and the latter is a cohort model incorporating country-specific cause-of-death (CoD) profiles among children under-five. The trends of estimates of the two models are similar, but the estimates of the first year are different in most of the countries included in the analysis. The two models are comparable if we adjust the measles CoD in the LiST to produce the same baseline estimates. In addition, we used the models to estimate the potential impact of stopping using measles vaccine over a 7-year period. The WHO/IVB model produced similar estimates to the LiST model with adjusted CoD. But the LiST model produced low estimates for countries with very low or eliminated measles infection that may be inappropriate. Conclusions: The study presents methodological and quantitative comparisons between the WHO/IVB and the LiST measles models that highlights differences in model structures and may help users to better interpret and contrast estimates of the measles death from the two models. The major differences are resulted from the usage of case-fatality rate (CFR) in the WHO/IVB model and the CoD profile in the LiST . Both models have their own advantages and limitations. Users should be aware of the issue and apply as update country parameters as possible. Advanced models are expected to validate the policy-planning tools in the future.
languageeng
source
version6
oafree_for_read
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
linktorsrc$$Uhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/902202469/?pq-origsite=primo$$EView_record_in_ProQuest_(subscribers_only)
search
creatorcontribChen, Wei-Ju
titleComparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model
descriptionAbstract Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST ) has been developed to estimate the impact of health interventions and can consider multiple interventions simultaneously. Given its increasing usage by donor organizations and national program planner, we compare the LiST measles model to the widely used World Health Organization's Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (WHO/IVB) measles model which is used to produce estimates serving as a major indicator of monitoring country measles epidemics and the progress of measles control. Methods: We analyzed the WHO/IVB models and the LiST measles model and identified components and assumptions held in each model. We contrasted the important components, and compared results from the two models by applying historical measles containing vaccine (MCV) coverages and the default values of all parameters set in the models. We also conducted analyses following a hypothetical scenario to understand how both models performed when the proportion of population protected by MCV declined to zero percent in short time period. Results: The WHO/IVB measles model and the LiST measles model structures differ: the former is a mixed model which applies surveillance data adjusted for reporting completeness for countries with good disease surveillance system and applies a natural history model for countries with poorer disease control program and surveillance system, and the latter is a cohort model incorporating country-specific cause-of-death (CoD) profiles among children under-five. The trends of estimates of the two models are similar, but the estimates of the first year are different in most of the countries included in the analysis. The two models are comparable if we adjust the measles CoD in the LiST to produce the same baseline estimates. In addition, we used the models to estimate the potential impact of stopping using measles vaccine over a 7-year period. The WHO/IVB model produced similar estimates to the LiST model with adjusted CoD. But the LiST model produced low estimates for countries with very low or eliminated measles infection that may be inappropriate. Conclusions: The study presents methodological and quantitative comparisons between the WHO/IVB and the LiST measles models that highlights differences in model structures and may help users to better interpret and contrast estimates of the measles death from the two models. The major differences are resulted from the usage of case-fatality rate (CFR) in the WHO/IVB model and the CoD profile in the LiST . Both models have their own advantages and limitations. Users should be aware of the issue and apply as update country parameters as possible. Advanced models are expected to validate the policy-planning tools in the future.
subject
0Child Mortality–Mortality
1Child, Preschool–Prevention & Control
2Humans–Prevention & Control
3Immunization–Prevention & Control
4Infant–Prevention & Control
5Infant Mortality–Prevention & Control
6Measles–Prevention & Control
7Measles Vaccine–Prevention & Control
8Models, Theoretical–Prevention & Control
9World Health Organization–Prevention & Control
10Measles
11Decision Making
12Fatalities
13Vaccines
14Children & Youth
15Measles Vaccine
16World Health Organization
17923120
general
0English
1BioMed Central
210.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S33
3Medical Database
4Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
5Medical Database (Alumni edition)
6Health & Medical Collection
7ProQuest Public Health
8Engineering Database
9Publicly Available Content Database
10Environmental Science Database (ProQuest)
11ProQuest Biological Science Collection
12ProQuest Central
13ProQuest Engineering Collection
14ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
15ProQuest Hospital Collection
16ProQuest Natural Science Collection
17ProQuest Technology Collection
18Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
19ProQuest SciTech Collection
20ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
21ProQuest Medical Library
22British Nursing Index with Full Text
23Agricultural & Environmental Science Database
24Biological Science Database
25Materials Science & Engineering Database
26Natural Science Collection
27ProQuest Central (new)
28ProQuest Central K-12
29ProQuest Central Korea
30SciTech Premium Collection
31Technology Collection
32Health Research Premium Collection
33Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
34ProQuest Central Essentials
35ProQuest Central China
36ProQuest One Academic
37Environmental Science Index (ProQuest)
38Biological Science Index (ProQuest)
39Environmental Science Collection (ProQuest)
40Engineering Collection (ProQuest)
sourceidproquest
recordidproquest902202469
issn
014712458
11471-2458
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2011
addtitleBMC Public Health
searchscope
01000273
11006072
21006761
31006762
41007067
51007404
61007617
71007853
81007945
91008510
101008886
111009127
121009240
131009386
141009714
1510000004
1610000006
1710000038
1810000039
1910000041
2010000043
2110000047
2210000050
2310000053
2410000118
2510000119
2610000120
2710000155
2810000156
2910000157
3010000158
3110000186
3210000198
3310000200
3410000209
3510000217
3610000234
3710000238
3810000250
3910000253
4010000255
4110000256
4210000257
4310000258
4410000260
4510000265
4610000268
4710000270
4810000271
4910000281
5010000300
5110000302
5210000348
5310000349
5410000350
5510000354
5610000356
5710000360
58proquest
scope
01000273
11006072
21006761
31006762
41007067
51007404
61007617
71007853
81007945
91008510
101008886
111009127
121009240
131009386
141009714
1510000004
1610000006
1710000038
1810000039
1910000041
2010000043
2110000047
2210000050
2310000053
2410000118
2510000119
2610000120
2710000155
2810000156
2910000157
3010000158
3110000186
3210000198
3310000200
3410000209
3510000217
3610000234
3710000238
3810000250
3910000253
4010000255
4110000256
4210000257
4310000258
4410000260
4510000265
4610000268
4710000270
4810000271
4910000281
5010000300
5110000302
5210000348
5310000349
5410000350
5510000354
5610000356
5710000360
58proquest
lsr43
01000273true
11006072true
21006761true
31006762true
41007067true
51007404false
61007617true
71007853true
81007945true
91008510true
101008886true
111009127true
121009240true
131009386true
141009714true
1510000004false
1610000006false
1710000038false
1810000039true
1910000041true
2010000043true
2110000047true
2210000050true
2310000053true
2410000118true
2510000119true
2610000120true
2710000155true
2810000156true
2910000157true
3010000158true
3110000186true
3210000198false
3310000200false
3410000209false
3510000217false
3610000234true
3710000238false
3810000250true
3910000253true
4010000255true
4110000256true
4210000257true
4310000258true
4410000260true
4510000265true
4610000268true
4710000270true
4810000271true
4910000281true
5010000300true
5110000302true
5210000348true
5310000349false
5410000350false
5510000354true
5610000356true
5710000360true
startdate20110101
enddate20110101
citationpf S33 vol 11 issue Suppl 3
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pqid]
sort
titleComparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model
authorChen, Wei-Ju
creationdate20110101
lso0120110101
facets
frbrgroupid3466914583339087781
frbrtype5
languageeng
creationdate2011
topic
0Child Mortality–Mortality
1Child, Preschool–Prevention & Control
2Humans–Prevention & Control
3Immunization–Prevention & Control
4Infant–Prevention & Control
5Infant Mortality–Prevention & Control
6Measles–Prevention & Control
7Measles Vaccine–Prevention & Control
8Models, Theoretical–Prevention & Control
9World Health Organization–Prevention & Control
10Measles
11Decision Making
12Fatalities
13Vaccines
14Children & Youth
15Measles Vaccine
16World Health Organization
collection
0Medical Database
1Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
2Medical Database (Alumni edition)
3Health & Medical Collection
4ProQuest Public Health
5Engineering Database
6Publicly Available Content Database
7Environmental Science Database (ProQuest)
8ProQuest Biological Science Collection
9ProQuest Central
10ProQuest Engineering Collection
11ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
12ProQuest Hospital Collection
13ProQuest Natural Science Collection
14ProQuest Technology Collection
15Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
16ProQuest SciTech Collection
17ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
18ProQuest Medical Library
19British Nursing Index with Full Text
20Agricultural & Environmental Science Database
21Biological Science Database
22Materials Science & Engineering Database
23Natural Science Collection
24ProQuest Central (new)
25ProQuest Central K-12
26ProQuest Central Korea
27SciTech Premium Collection
28Technology Collection
29Health Research Premium Collection
30Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
31ProQuest Central Essentials
32ProQuest Central China
33ProQuest One Academic
34Environmental Science Index (ProQuest)
35Biological Science Index (ProQuest)
36Environmental Science Collection (ProQuest)
37Engineering Collection (ProQuest)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontribChen, Wei-Ju
jtitleBMC Public Health
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext_linktorsrc
addata
aulastChen
aufirstWei-Ju
auinit1W.
auChen, Wei-Ju
atitleComparison of LiST measles mortality model and WHO/IVB measles model
jtitleBMC Public Health
risdate20110101
volume11
issueSuppl 3
spageS33
pagesS33
eissn14712458
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractAbstract Background: The Lives Saved Tool (LiST ) has been developed to estimate the impact of health interventions and can consider multiple interventions simultaneously. Given its increasing usage by donor organizations and national program planner, we compare the LiST measles model to the widely used World Health Organization's Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (WHO/IVB) measles model which is used to produce estimates serving as a major indicator of monitoring country measles epidemics and the progress of measles control. Methods: We analyzed the WHO/IVB models and the LiST measles model and identified components and assumptions held in each model. We contrasted the important components, and compared results from the two models by applying historical measles containing vaccine (MCV) coverages and the default values of all parameters set in the models. We also conducted analyses following a hypothetical scenario to understand how both models performed when the proportion of population protected by MCV declined to zero percent in short time period. Results: The WHO/IVB measles model and the LiST measles model structures differ: the former is a mixed model which applies surveillance data adjusted for reporting completeness for countries with good disease surveillance system and applies a natural history model for countries with poorer disease control program and surveillance system, and the latter is a cohort model incorporating country-specific cause-of-death (CoD) profiles among children under-five. The trends of estimates of the two models are similar, but the estimates of the first year are different in most of the countries included in the analysis. The two models are comparable if we adjust the measles CoD in the LiST to produce the same baseline estimates. In addition, we used the models to estimate the potential impact of stopping using measles vaccine over a 7-year period. The WHO/IVB model produced similar estimates to the LiST model with adjusted CoD. But the LiST model produced low estimates for countries with very low or eliminated measles infection that may be inappropriate. Conclusions: The study presents methodological and quantitative comparisons between the WHO/IVB and the LiST measles models that highlights differences in model structures and may help users to better interpret and contrast estimates of the measles death from the two models. The major differences are resulted from the usage of case-fatality rate (CFR) in the WHO/IVB model and the CoD profile in the LiST . Both models have their own advantages and limitations. Users should be aware of the issue and apply as update country parameters as possible. Advanced models are expected to validate the policy-planning tools in the future.
copLondon
pubBioMed Central
doi10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S33
urlhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/902202469/
oafree_for_read
date2011-01-01