Impact assessment of self-medication on COVID-19 prevalence in Gauteng, South Africa, using an age-structured disease transmission modelling framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of self-medication on the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 across different age groups, examine the interplay of vaccination and self-medication in disease spread, and identify the age group most prone to self-medication. METHODS: We developed an age-structured compartmentalized epidemiological model to track the early dynamics of COVID-19. Age-structured data from the Government of Gauteng, encompassing the reported cumulative number of cases and daily confirmed cases, were used to calibrate the model through a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) framework. Subsequently, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted on the model parameters. RESULTS: We found that self-medication is predominant among the age group 15-64 (74.52%), followed by the age group 0-14 (34.02%), and then the age group 65+ (11.41%). The mean values of the basic reproduction number, the size of the first epidemic peak (the highest magnitude of the disease), and the time of the first epidemic peak (when the first highest magnitude occurs) are 4.16499, 241,715 cases, and 190.376 days, respectively. Moreover, we observed that self-medication among individuals aged 15-64 results in the highest spreading rate of COVID-19 at the onset of the outbreak and has the greatest impact on the first epidemic peak and its timing. CONCLUSION: Studies aiming to understand the dynamics of diseases in areas prone to self-medication should account for this practice. There is a need for a campaign against COVID-19-related self-medication, specifically targeting the active population (ages 15-64).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".