The Impact of Population, Contact, and Spatial Heterogeneity on Epidemic Model Predictions.

Our objective was to evaluate the effect that complexity in the form of different levels of spatial, population, and contact heterogeneity has in the predictions of a mechanistic epidemic model. A model that simulates the spatiotemporal spread of infectious diseases between animal populations was developed. Sixteen scenarios of foot-and-mouth disease infection in cattle were analyzed, involving combinations of the following factors: multiple production-types (PT) with heterogeneous contact and population structure versus single PT, random versus actual spatial distribution of population units, high versus low infectivity, and no vaccination versus preemptive vaccination. The epidemic size and duration was larger for scenarios with multiple PT versus single PT. Ignoring the actual unit locations did not affect the epidemic size in scenarios with multiple PT/high infectivity, but resulted in smaller epidemic sizes in scenarios using multiple PT/low infectivity. In conclusion, when modeling fast-spreading epidemics, knowing the actual locations of population units may not be as relevant as collecting information on population and contact heterogeneity. In contrast, both population and spatial heterogeneity might be important to model slower spreading epidemic diseases. Our findings can be used to inform data collection and modeling efforts to inform health policy and planning.

[1]  Nick Taylor,et al.  Review of the use of models in informing disease control policy development and adjustment. , 2003 .

[2]  Mark C Thurmond,et al.  Results of epidemic simulation modeling to evaluate strategies to control an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. , 2003, American journal of veterinary research.

[3]  A. Torres,et al.  Risk management of international trade: emergency preparedness. , 2002, Revue scientifique et technique.

[4]  T. Geisel,et al.  Forecast and control of epidemics in a globalized world. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  A. Hill,et al.  The North American Animal Disease Spread Model: a simulation model to assist decision making in evaluating animal disease incursions. , 2007, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[6]  S. Cornell,et al.  Dynamics of the 2001 UK Foot and Mouth Epidemic: Stochastic Dispersal in a Heterogeneous Landscape , 2001, Science.

[7]  M. Schoenbaum,et al.  Modeling alternative mitigation strategies for a hypothetical outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States. , 2003, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[8]  B. Ripley.  Modelling Spatial Patterns , 1977 .

[9]  Bradley F Dickey,et al.  Use of heterogeneous operation-specific contact parameters changes predictions for foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in complex simulation models. , 2008, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[10]  Odo Diekmann,et al.  A deterministic epidemic model taking account of repeated contacts between the same individuals , 1998, Journal of Applied Probability.

[11]  Fred Brauer,et al.  Epidemic Models with Heterogeneous Mixing and Treatment , 2008, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[12]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  THE USE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MODELS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ANIMAL DISEASES , 2007 .

[13]  K Owen,et al.  Foot and mouth disease model verification and 'relative validation' through a formal model comparison. , 2011, Revue scientifique et technique.

[14]  G. Gibson,et al.  Estimation of multiple transmission rates for epidemics in heterogeneous populations , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  T E Carpenter,et al.  Direct and indirect contact rates among beef, dairy, goat, sheep, and swine herds in three California counties, with reference to control of potential foot-and-mouth disease transmission. , 2001, American journal of veterinary research.

[16]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic modeling in complex realities. , 2007, Comptes rendus biologies.

[17]  J. Bombardt.  Congruent epidemic models for unstructured and structured populations: Analytical reconstruction of a 2003 SARS outbreak , 2006, Mathematical Biosciences.

[18]  I. Kiss,et al.  Modelling the initial spread of foot-and-mouth disease through animal movements , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  A. Nizam,et al.  Containing pandemic influenza with antiviral agents. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  R. Durrett,et al.  The Importance of Being Discrete (and Spatial) , 1994 .

[21]  N. Cox,et al.  Pandemic Influenza Planning, United States, 1978–2008 , 2013, Emerging infectious diseases.

[22]  D. Clancy.  Carrier-borne epidemic models incorporating population mobility. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[23]  T D Hollingsworth,et al.  Variational data assimilation with epidemic models. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  M. Keeling,et al.  The effects of local spatial structure on epidemiological invasions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  R. May,et al.  Dimensions of superspreading , 2005, Nature.

[26]  Rowland R Kao,et al.  The effect of contact heterogeneity and multiple routes of transmission on final epidemic size. , 2006, Mathematical biosciences.

[27]  D. Pendell.  Value of animal traceability systems in managing a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in southwest Kansas , 2007 .

[28]  M. Keeling,et al.  Impact of spatial clustering on disease transmission and optimal control , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Mark C Thurmond,et al.  A Simulation Model of Intraherd Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease with Reference to Disease Spread before and after Clinical Diagnosis , 2004, Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.