Health Care Management Science

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 147–155 | Cite as

Random vs. Nonrandom Mixing in Network Epidemic Models

  • Gregory S. Zaric
Article

Abstract

In this paper we compare random and nonrandom mixing patterns for network epidemic models. Several of studies have examined the impact of different mixing patterns using compartmental epidemic models. We extend the work on compartmental models to the case of network epidemic models. We define two nonrandom mixing patterns for a network epidemic model and investigate the impact that these mixing patterns have on a number of epidemic outcomes when compared to random mixing. We find that different mixing assumptions lead to small but statistically significant differences in disease prevalence, cumulative number of new infections, final population size, and network structure. Significant differences in outcomes were more likely to be observed for larger populations and longer time horizons. Sensitivity analysis revealed that greater differences in outcomes between random and nonrandom mixing were associated with a larger incremental mortality rate among infected individuals, a larger average number of partners, and a greater probability of forming new partnerships. When adjusted for the initial population size, differences between random and nonrandom mixing models were approximately constant across all population sizes considered. We also considered the impact that differences between mixing models might have on the cost effectiveness ratio for epidemic control interventions.

epidemic models simulation HIV cost effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A.L. Adams, J.S. Koopman, S.E. Chick and P.J. Yu, GERMS: An epidemiologic simulation tool for studying geographic and social effects on infection transmission, in: Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference (1999).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    N.J. Bailey, The Mathematical Theory of Infectious Diseases and its Applications (Hafner Press, New York, 1975).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S.M. Blower, D. Hartel, H. Dowlatabadi, R.M. Anderson and R.M. May, Drugs, sex and HIV: A mathematical model for New York City, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Science 331 (1991) 171-187.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S.P. Blythe and C. Castillo-Chavez, Like-with-like preferences and sexual mixing models, Mathematical Biosciences 96 (1989) 221-238.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Castillo-Chavez and S.P. Blythe, Mixing framework for social/ sexual behavior, in: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to AIDS Epidemiology, ed. C. Castillo-Chavez (Springer, Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S.E. Chick, A.L. Adams and J.S. Koopman, Analysis and simulation of a stochastic, discrete-individual model of STD transmission with partnership concurrency, Mathematical Biosciences 166 (2000) 45-68.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    W.W. Darrow et al., Using knowledge of social networks to prevent human immunodeficiency virus infections: The Colorado Springs study, Sociological Focus 32 (1999) 143-158.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Drummond, G. Torrance and J. Mason, Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good?, Social Science and Medicine 37 (1993) 33-40.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    T.J. Fararo, Biased networks and the strength of weak ties, Social Networks 5 (1983) 1-11.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C.C. Foster, A. Rapoport and C.J. Orwant, A study of a large sociogram II. Elimination of free parameters, Behavioural Science 8 (1963) 56-65.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S.R. Friedman et al., Networks, norms and solidaristic/altruistic action against AIDS among the demonized, Sociological Focus 32 (1999) 127-142.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S.R. Friedman et al., Sociometric risk networks and risk for HIV infection, American Journal of Public Health 87 (1997) 1289-1296.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M.R. Gold, J.E. Siegel, L.B. Russell and M.C. Weinstein, Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M.S. Granovetter, The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973) 1360-1380.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.E. Helander and R. Batta, A discrete transmission model for HIV, in: Modeling the AIDS Epidemic: Planning, Policy, and Prediction, eds. E.H. Kaplan and M.L. Brandeau (Raven Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    C.R. Hicks, Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments (Holt, Rindehart and Winston, Orlando, 1982).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J.P. Hoffman, S.S. Su and A. Pach, Changes in network characteristics and HIV risk behavior among injection drug users, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 46 (1997) 41-51.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J.A. Jacquez, C.P. Simon and J. Koopman, Structured mixing: Heterogeneous mixing by the definition of activity groups, in: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to AIDS Epidemiology, ed. C. Castillo-Chavez (Springer, Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E.H. Kaplan, Asymptotic worst-case mixing in simple demographic models of HIV/AIDS, Mathematical Biosciences 108 (1992) 141-156.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    E.H. Kaplan and Y.S. Lee, How bad can it get? Bounding worst case endemic heterogeneous mixing models of HIV/AIDS, Mathematical Biosciences 99 (1990) 157-180.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R.M. Kaplan and J.W. Bush, Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis, Health Psychology 1 (1982) 61-80.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    E.H. Kaplan, P.C. Crampton and A.D. Paltiel, Nonrandom mixing models of HIV transmission, in: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to AIDS Epidemiology, ed. C. Castillo-Chavez (Springer, Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    A.S. Klovdahl, Social networks and the spread of infectious diseases: The AIDS example, Social Science and Medicine 21 (1985) 1203-1216.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A.S. Klovdahl et al., Social networks and infectious disease: The Colorado Springs study, Social Science and Medicine 38 (1994) 79-88.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Koopman, S. Chick and G. Jacquez, Analyzing sensitivity to model form assumptions of infection transmission system models, Annals of Epidemiology 10 (2000) 472.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J.S. Koopman, C.P. Simon, J.A. Jacquez and T.S. Park, Selective contact within structured mixing with an application to HIV transmission risk from oral and anal sex, in: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to AIDS Epidemiology, ed. C. Castillo-Chavez (Springer, Berlin, 1989).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Koopman et al., Sexual partner selectiveness effects on homosexual HIV transmission dynamics, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 1 (1988) 486-504.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J.S. Koopman et al., Modeling contact networks and infection transmission in geographic and social space using GERMS, Sexually Transmitted Diseases 27 (2000) 617-626.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Kretzschmar and M. Morris, Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious diseases, Mathematical Biosciences 133 (1996) 165-195.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    M. Kretzschmar and L.G. Wiessing, Modelling the spread of HIV in social networks of injecting drug users, AIDS 12 (1998) 801-811.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. Kretzschmar, D.P. Reinking, H. Brouwers, H., G.V. Zessen and J.C. Jager, Network models: From paradigm to mathematical tool, in: Modeling the AIDS Epidemic: Planning, Policy, and Prediction, eds. E.H. Kaplan and M.L. Brandeau (Raven Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    M. Kretzschmar, Y. van Duynhoven and A.J. Severijnen, Modeling prevention strategies for gonorrhea and chlamydia using stochastic network simulations, American Journal of Epidemiology 144 (1996) 306-317.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E.M. Laska, M. Meisner, C. Seigel and A.A. Stinett, Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: Proofs of optimality and equivalence, Health Economics 8 (1999) 171-174.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    C.A. Latkin, W. Mandell and D. Vlahov, The relationship between risk networks' patterns of crack cocaine and alcohol consumption and HIVrelated sexual behaviors among adult injection drug users, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 42 (1996) 175-181.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    C. Latkin et al., Using social network analysis to study patterns of drug use among urban drug users at high risk for HIV/AIDS, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 38 (1995) 1-9.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    E.O. Laumann, J.H. Gagnon, R.T. Michael and S. Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    A.M. Law and W.D. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    M. Morris and M. Kretzschmar, Concurrent partnerships and transmission dynamics in networks, Social Networks 17 (1995) 299-318.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    A. Neaigus et al., High-risk personal networks and syringe sharing as risk factors for HIV infection among new drug injectors, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 11 (1996) 499-509.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    A. Neaigus et al., The relevance of drug injectors' social and risk networks for understanding and preventing HIV infection, Social Science and Medicine 38 (1994) 67-78.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    D.K. Owens, Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses [Editorial], Journal of General Internal Medicine 13 (1998) 716-717.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    J.J. Potterat, R.B. Rothenberg and S.Q. Muth, Network structural dynamics and infectious disease propagation, International Journal of STD and AIDS 10 (1999) 182-185.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    A. Rapoport, Spread of information through a population with sociostructural bias: I. Assumption of transitivity, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 15 (1953) 523-533.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    A. Rapoport, Spread of information through a population with sociostructural bias: II. Various models with partial transitivity, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 15 (1953) 535-546.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    A. Rapoport and Y. Yuan, Some aspects of epidemics and social nets, in: The Small World, ed. M. Kochen (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1989).Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    C.S. Riolo, J.S. Koopman and S.E. Chick, Methods and measures for the description of epidemiologic contact networks, Journal of Urban Health 78 (2001) 446-457.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    R.A. Royce, A. Sena, W. Cates, Jr. and M.S. Cohen, Sexual transmission of HIV, New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997) 1072-1078.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    J. Skvoretz and T. Fararo, Connectivity and the small world problem, in: The Small World, ed. M. Kochen (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1989).Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    J. Skvoretz, Random and biased networks: Simulations and approximations, Social Networks 7 (1985) 225-261.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    R. Solomonoff and A. Rapoport, Connectivity of random nets, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 13 (1951) 107-117.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    T. Suh, W. Mandell, C. Latkin and J. Kim, Social network characteristics and injecting HIV-risk behaviors among street injection drug users, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 47 (1997) 137-143.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    J. Wallinga, W.J. Edmunds and M. Kretzschmar, Perspective: Human contact patterns and the spread of airborne infectious diseases, Trends in Microbiology 7 (1999) 372-377.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    S. Wasserman, Analyzing social networks as stochastic processes, Journal of the American Statistical Association 75 (1980) 280-294.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    D.J. Watts, Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999).Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    G.S. Zaric, M.L. Brandeau and P.G. Barnett, Methadone maintenance and HIV prevention: A cost-effectiveness analysis, Management Science 46 (2000) 1013-1031.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory S. Zaric
    • 1
  1. 1.Ivey School of Business, University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations