Browsing by Author "Pepin KM"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Practitioner perspectives on informing decisions in One Health sectors with predictive models
    (Springer Nature Limited, 2025-12-01) Pepin KM; Carlisle K; Chipman RB; Cole D; Anderson DP; Baker MG; Benschop J; Bunce M; Binny RN; French N; Greenhalgh S; O’Neale DRJ; McDougall S; Morgan FJ; Muellner P; Murphy E; Plank MJ; Tompkins DM; Hayman DTS
    The continued emergence of challenges in human, animal, and environmental health (One Health sectors) requires public servants to make management and policy decisions about system-level ecological and sociological processes that are complex, poorly understood, and change over time. Relying on intuition, evidence, and experience for robust decision-making is challenging without a formal assimilation of these elements (a model), especially when the decision needs to consider potential impacts if an action is or is not taken. Models can provide assistance to this challenge, but effective development and use of model-based evidence in decision-making (‘model-to-decision workflow’) can be challenging. To address this gap, we examined conditions that maximize the value of model-based evidence in decision-making in One Health sectors by conducting 41 semi-structured interviews of researchers, science advisors, operational managers, and policy decision-makers with direct experience in model-to-decision workflows (‘Practitioners’) in One Health sectors. Broadly, our interview guide was structured to understand practitioner perspectives about the utility of models in health policy or management decision-making, challenges and risks with using models in this capacity, experience with using models, factors that affect trust in model-based evidence, and perspectives about conditions that lead to the most effective model-to-decision workflow. We used inductive qualitative analysis of the interview data with iterative coding to identify key themes for maximizing the value of model-based evidence in One Health applications. Our analysis describes practitioner perspectives for improved collaboration among modelers and decision-makers in public service, and priorities for increasing accessibility and value of model-based evidence in One Health decision-making. Two emergent priorities include establishing different standards for development of model-based evidence before or after decisions are made, or in real-time versus preparedness phases of emergency response, and investment in knowledge brokers with modeling expertise working in teams with decision-makers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Steps towards operationalizing One Health approaches.
    (Elsevier B.V., 2024-04-27) Pepin KM; Carlisle K; Anderson D; Baker MG; Chipman RB; Benschop J; French NP; Greenhalgh S; McDougall S; Muellner P; Murphy E; O'Neale DRJ; Plank MJ; Hayman DTS
    One Health recognizes the health of humans, agriculture, wildlife, and the environment are interrelated. The concept has been embraced by international health and environmental authorities such as WHO, WOAH, FAO, and UNEP, but One Health approaches have been more practiced by researchers than national or international authorities. To identify priorities for operationalizing One Health beyond research contexts, we conducted 41 semi-structured interviews with professionals across One Health sectors (public health, environment, agriculture, wildlife) and institutional contexts, who focus on national-scale and international applications. We identify important challenges, solutions, and priorities for delivering the One Health agenda through government action. Participants said One Health has made progress with motivating stakeholders to attempt One Health approaches, but achieving implementation needs more guidance (action plans for how to leverage or change current government infrastructure to accommodate cross-sector policy and strategic mission planning) and facilitation (behavioral change, dedicated personnel, new training model).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Utility of mosquito surveillance data for spatial prioritization of vector control against dengue viruses in three Brazilian cities
    (BioMed Central, 2015-12) Pepin KM; Leach CB; Marques-Toledo C; Laass KH; Paixao KS; Luis AD; Hayman DTS; Johnson NG; Buhnerkempe MG; Carver S; Grear DA; Tsao K; Eiras AE; Webb CT
    BACKGROUND: Vector control remains the primary defense against dengue fever. Its success relies on the assumption that vector density is related to disease transmission. Two operational issues include the amount by which mosquito density should be reduced to minimize transmission and the spatio-temporal allotment of resources needed to reduce mosquito density in a cost-effective manner. Recently, a novel technology, MI-Dengue, was implemented city-wide in several Brazilian cities to provide real-time mosquito surveillance data for spatial prioritization of vector control resources. We sought to understand the role of city-wide mosquito density data in predicting disease incidence in order to provide guidance for prioritization of vector control work. METHODS: We used hierarchical Bayesian regression modeling to examine the role of city-wide vector surveillance data in predicting human cases of dengue fever in space and time. We used four years of weekly surveillance data from Vitoria city, Brazil, to identify the best model structure. We tested effects of vector density, lagged case data and spatial connectivity. We investigated the generality of the best model using an additional year of data from Vitoria and two years of data from other Brazilian cities: Governador Valadares and Sete Lagoas. RESULTS: We found that city-wide, neighborhood-level averages of household vector density were a poor predictor of dengue-fever cases in the absence of accounting for interactions with human cases. Effects of city-wide spatial patterns were stronger than within-neighborhood or nearest-neighborhood effects. Readily available proxies of spatial relationships between human cases, such as economic status, population density or between-neighborhood roadway distance, did not explain spatial patterns in cases better than unweighted global effects. CONCLUSIONS: For spatial prioritization of vector controls, city-wide spatial effects should be given more weight than within-neighborhood or nearest-neighborhood connections, in order to minimize city-wide cases of dengue fever. More research is needed to determine which data could best inform city-wide connectivity. Once these data become available, MI-dengue may be even more effective if vector control is spatially prioritized by considering city-wide connectivity between cases together with information on the location of mosquito density and infected mosquitos.