ABSTRACT
Background and objectives Infectious disease modelling plays a critical role in guiding policy during outbreaks. However, ongoing debates over the utility of these models highlight the need for a deeper understanding of their role in policymaking. In this scoping review we sought to assess how infectious disease modelling informs policy, focusing on challenges and facilitators of translating modelling insights into actionable policies.
Methods We searched the Ovid database to identify modelling studies that included an assessment of utility in informing policy and decision-making from January 2019 onwards. We further identified studies based on expert judgement. Results were analysed descriptively. The study was registered on the Open Science Framework platform.
Results Out of 4007 screened and 12 additionally suggested studies, a total of 33 studies were selected for our review. None of the included articles provided objective assessments of utility but rather reflected subjectively on modelling efforts and highlighted individual key aspects for utility. 27 of the included articles considered the COVID-19 pandemic and 25 of the articles were from high-income countries. Most modelling efforts aimed to forecast outbreaks and evaluate mitigation strategies. Participatory stakeholder engagement and collaboration between academia, policy, and non-governmental organizations were identified as key facilitators of the modelling-to-policy pathway. However, barriers such as data inconsistencies and quality, uncoordinated decision-making, limited funding and misinterpretation of uncertainties hindered effective use of modelling in decision-making.
Conclusion While our review identifies crucial facilitators and barriers for the modelling-to-policy pathway, the lack of rigorous assessments of the utility of modelling for policy highlights the need to systematically evaluate the impact of infectious disease modelling on policy in future.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DR, AT, ENI, SM, PCB, KH, KR, JH, SF are supported by the Robert Koch Institute. DR and AT are in part funded, and ENI and KR are fully funded by the World Health Organization. KS and SF are supported by the Wellcome Trust (210758/Z/18/Z). JF is supported by the World Health Organization.
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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos