The Effect of Individual Movements and Interventions on the Spread of Influenza in Long-Term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nosocomial influenza poses a serious risk among residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effect of resident and staff movements and contact patterns on the outcomes of various intervention strategies for influenza control in an LTCF. METHODS: We collected contact frequency data in Canada's largest veterans' LTCF by enroling residents and staff into a study that tracked their movements through wireless tags and signal receivers. We analyzed and fitted the data to an agent-based simulation model of influenza infection, and performed Monte-Carlo simulations to evaluate the benefit of antiviral prophylaxis and patient isolation added to standard (baseline) infection control practice (i.e., vaccination of residents and staff, plus antiviral treatment of residents with symptomatic infection). RESULTS: We calibrated the model to attack rates of 20%, 40%, and 60% for the baseline scenario. For data-driven movements, we found that the largest reduction in attack rates (12.5% to 27%; ANOVA P < 0.001) was achieved when the baseline strategy was combined with antiviral prophylaxis for all residents for the duration of the outbreak. Isolation of residents with symptomatic infection resulted in little or no effect on the attack rates (2.3% to 4.2%; ANOVA P > 0.2) among residents. In contrast, parameterizing the model with random movements yielded different results, suggesting that the highest benefit was achieved through patient isolation (69.6% to 79.6%; ANOVA P < 0.001) while the additional benefit of prophylaxis was negligible in reducing the cumulative number of infections. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a highly structured contact and movement patterns within the LTCF. Accounting for this structure-instead of assuming randomness-in decision analytic methods can result in substantially different predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".