A Stakeholder-Engaged Economic Evaluation of Site-Specific Wastewater-Based Surveillance for COVID-19 Outbreak Control in Long-Term Care Facilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) gained prominence during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a non-invasive infectious disease monitoring tool. Long-term care facilities (LTCF) have been disproportionately impacted during the pandemic. Effective surveillance methods are needed to provide early warnings of new infections to protect both residents and staff. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of incorporating site-specific WBS in monitoring COVID-19 in LTCFs. This thesis leveraged longitudinal data based on nine facilities in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada participating in the WBS program between January 2021 and May 2023. The study comprises four chapters. The first study (Chapter 2) focuses on exploring stakeholders’ opinions in applying site-specific WBS in LTCFs and engaging them to develop the economic evaluation plan. Their feedback guided the cost-effectiveness analysis by proposing WBS-based actions and refining key assumptions, perspectives, and outcome measures, thereby enhancing the relevance of the evaluation. The second study (Chapter 3) involves a statistical analysis of wastewater data. Constrained distributed lag models were used to estimate the lead time of WBS to detect the existence of COVID-19 infections before clinical diagnosis and the accuracy of wastewater data in predicting mass testing outcomes. Results demonstrated that wastewater detection preceded clinical cases by up to five days, with a three-day lead time being the most common. Additionally, wastewater data predicted mass testing outcomes with 80% accuracy for negative results and 60% for positive results, better predicting resident cases than staff cases (74% vs. 33%, p = 0.02). No significant associations were found between predictive performance and WBS operational factors. The third study (Chapter 4) developed a Susceptible-Infected-Case-Recovered (SICR) model to compare WBS-informed interventions with the Standard of Care across pandemic phases between March 2020 to February 2023. The model estimated that WBS-informed prevalence testing in the early pandemic phase averted 122 cases (95% credible interval (C.I.): 103–143) across four outbreaks, while WBS-informed symptom screening in the endemic transition phase averted 132 cases (95% C.I.: 106-152) across 17 outbreaks. These results highlight the potential of WBS in outbreak control, particularly when vaccination or specific treatment is unavailable. The last study (Chapter 5) integrated the case-averted estimates into a cost-effectiveness analysis. WBS implementation cost at nine LTCFs over three years was $1.6 million, in 2024 Canadian dollars. WBS is shown to be the most cost-effective during the early pandemic, with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,065 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Across all three years, the expected ICER was $47,263/QALY, which is within the $50,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed that implementation costs, the characteristics of the virus, and healthcare system responses significantly influenced cost-effectiveness. Overall, this thesis demonstrates the potential cost-effectiveness of WBS in preventing COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCFs. This thesis will inform various stakeholders about the value of WBS and provide insights into its future development and application for other infectious diseases.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it