IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0025149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Effectiveness of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies in Containing Influenza

Author

Listed:
  • Achla Marathe
  • Bryan Lewis
  • Christopher Barrett
  • Jiangzhuo Chen
  • Madhav Marathe
  • Stephen Eubank
  • Yifei Ma

Abstract

This research compares the performance of bottom-up, self-motivated behavioral interventions with top-down interventions targeted at controlling an “Influenza-like-illness”. Both types of interventions use a variant of the ring strategy. In the first case, when the fraction of a person's direct contacts who are diagnosed exceeds a threshold, that person decides to seek prophylaxis, e.g. vaccine or antivirals; in the second case, we consider two intervention protocols, denoted Block and School: when a fraction of people who are diagnosed in a Census Block (resp., School) exceeds the threshold, prophylax the entire Block (resp., School). Results show that the bottom-up strategy outperforms the top-down strategies under our parameter settings. Even in situations where the Block strategy reduces the overall attack rate well, it incurs a much higher cost. These findings lend credence to the notion that if people used antivirals effectively, making them available quickly on demand to private citizens could be a very effective way to control an outbreak.

Suggested Citation

  • Achla Marathe & Bryan Lewis & Christopher Barrett & Jiangzhuo Chen & Madhav Marathe & Stephen Eubank & Yifei Ma, 2011. "Comparing Effectiveness of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies in Containing Influenza," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-6, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025149
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025149
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025149&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0025149?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.