MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402710798 · doi:10.1177/0272989x241280611

Incorporating Social Determinants of Health in Infectious Disease Models: A Systematic Review of Guidelines

2024· review· en· W4402710798 on OpenAlexaff
Shehzad Ali, Zhe Li, Nasheed Moqueet, Seyed M. Moghadas, Alison P. Galvani, Lisa Cooper, Saverio Stranges, Margaret Haworth-Brockman, Andrew D. Pinto, Miqdad Asaria, David Champredon, Darren Hamilton, Marc S. Moulin, Ava John‐Baptiste

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WinnipegInternational Centre for Infectious DiseasesPublic Health OntarioYork UniversityUniversity of OttawaImpactPublic Health Agency of CanadaWestern University
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsConceptualizationSocial determinants of healthDiseaseSocioeconomic statusSocial epidemiologyHealth equityInfectious disease (medical specialty)Public healthHealth policyMedicineDisease burdenEnvironmental healthPopulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease (ID) models have been the backbone of policy decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, models often overlook variation in disease risk, health burden, and policy impact across social groups. Nonetheless, social determinants are becoming increasingly recognized as fundamental to the success of control strategies overall and to the mitigation of disparities. METHODS: To underscore the importance of considering social heterogeneity in epidemiological modeling, we systematically reviewed ID modeling guidelines to identify reasons and recommendations for incorporating social determinants of health into models in relation to the conceptualization, implementation, and interpretations of models. RESULTS: = 5) were the most commonly discussed social determinants. Specific recommendations were identified to consider social determinants to 1) improve the predictive accuracy of models, 2) understand heterogeneity of disease burden and policy impact, 3) contextualize decision making, 4) address inequalities, and 5) assess implementation challenges. CONCLUSION: This study can support modelers and policy makers in taking into account social heterogeneity, to consider the distributional impact of infectious disease outbreaks across social groups as well as to tailor approaches to improve equitable access to prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutics. HIGHLIGHTS: Infectious disease (ID) models often overlook the role of social determinants of health (SDH) in understanding variation in disease risk, health burden, and policy impact across social groups.In this study, we systematically review ID guidelines and identify key areas to consider SDH in relation to the conceptualization, implementation, and interpretations of models.We identify specific recommendations to consider SDH to improve model accuracy, understand heterogeneity, estimate policy impact, address inequalities, and assess implementation challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.013
Bibliometrics0.0160.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.568
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207