Paper: ‘Complexity in Epidemiology and Public Health: Addressing complex health problems through a mix of epidemiologic methods and data’

Delighted to share the online-first publication of this paper in Epidemiology with a number of wonderful co-authors, led by Naja Hulvej Rod. Abstract below.

Complexity in Epidemiology and Public Health: Addressing complex health problems through a mix of epidemiologic methods and data

Public health and the underlying disease processes are complex, often involving the interaction of biologic, social, psychological, economic, and other processes that may be non-linear and adaptive and have other features of complex systems. There is therefore a need to push the boundaries of public health beyond single-factor data analysis and expand the capacity of research methodology to tackle real-world complexities. This paper sets out a way to operationalize complex systems thinking in public health, with particular focus on how epidemiologic methods and data can contribute towards this end. Our proposed framework comprises three core dimensions–patterns, mechanisms, and dynamics–along which complex systems may be conceptualized. These dimensions cover seven key features of complex systems–emergence, interactions, non-linearity, interference, feedback loops, adaptation, and evolution. We relate this framework to examples of methods and data traditionally used in epidemiology. We conclude that systematic production of knowledge on complex health issues may benefit from: formulation of research questions and programs in terms of the core dimensions we identify, as a comprehensive way to capture crucial features of complex systems; integration of traditional epidemiologic methods with systems methodology such as computational simulation modeling; interdisciplinary work; and continued investment in a wide range of data types. We believe that the proposed framework can support systematic production of knowledge on complex health problems, with the use of epidemiology and other disciplines. This will help us understand emergent health phenomena, identify vulnerable population groups, and detect leverage points for promoting public health.

Pandemic response strategies and threshold phenomena

Delighted to share the publication of “Pandemic response strategies and threshold phenomena”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000081 by Pieter Streicher and I. Really proud of this one. Abstract below.

This paper critically evaluates the Suppression Threshold Strategy (STS) for controlling Covid-19 (C-19). STS asserts a “fundamental distinction” between suppression and mitigation strategies, reflected in very different outcomes in eventual mortality depending on whether reproductive number R is caused to fall below 1. We show that there is no real distinction based on any value of R which falls in any case from early on in an epidemic wave. We show that actual mortality outcomes lay on a continuum, correlating with suppression levels, but not exhibiting any step changes or threshold effects. We argue that an excessive focus on achieving suppression at all costs, driven by the erroneous notion that suppression is a threshold, led to a lack of information on how to trade off the effects of different specific interventions. This led many countries to continue with inappropriate intervention-packages even after it became clear that their initial goal was not going to be attained. Future pandemic planning must support the design of “Plan B”, which may be quite different from “Plan A”.