Abstract
Characterizing the feedback linking human behavior and the transmission of infectious diseases (i.e., behavioral changes) remains a significant challenge in computational and mathematical Epidemiology. Existing Behavioral Feedback Models often lack real-world data calibration and cross-model performance evaluation in both retrospective analysis and forecasting. In this study, we systematically compare the performance of three mechanistic behavioral models across nine geographies and two modeling tasks during the first wave of COVID-19, using various metrics. The first model, a Data-Driven Behavioral Feedback Model, incorporates behavioral changes by leveraging mobility data to capture variations in contact patterns. The second and third models are Analytical Behavioral Feedback Models, which simulate the feedback loop either through the explicit representation of different behavioral compartments within the population or by utilizing an effective non-linear force of infection. Our results do not identify a single best model overall, as performance varies based on factors such as data availability, data quality, and the choice of performance metrics. While the data-driven model incorporates substantial real-time behavioral information, the Analytical Compartmental Behavioral Feedback Model often demonstrates superior or equivalent performance in both retrospective fitting and out-of-sample forecasts. Overall, our work offers guidance for future approaches and methodologies to better integrate behavioral changes into the modeling and projection of epidemic dynamics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
N.G. acknowledge support from the Lagrange Project of the Institute for Scientific Interchange Foundation (ISI Foundation) funded by Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Torino (Fondazione CRT). A.V. acknowledges support from the HHS/CDC-5U01IP000113 and the CDC-RFA-FT-23-0069 cooperative agreement from the CDC's Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the funding agencies. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
