Author: Milne, George J; Baskaran, Pravin; Halder, Nilimesh; Karl, Stephan; Kelso, Joel
Title: Pandemic influenza in Papua New Guinea: a modelling study comparison with pandemic spread in a developed country Document date: 2013_3_26
ID: y01w04lc_109
Snippet: The school closure intervention in the Madang model is found to be approximately 5 times less effective compared to that of the Albany model. Simulation results suggest a 9.4% reduction (46.6% to 42.2%) in the illness attack rate can be achieved in Madang due to school closure whereas a 48.6% reduction (31.7% to 16.3%) can be achieved in Albany (see Table 1 ). For the Madang-nnh (no neighbourhood hub) model, school closure is approximately 3.5 ti.....
Document: The school closure intervention in the Madang model is found to be approximately 5 times less effective compared to that of the Albany model. Simulation results suggest a 9.4% reduction (46.6% to 42.2%) in the illness attack rate can be achieved in Madang due to school closure whereas a 48.6% reduction (31.7% to 16.3%) can be achieved in Albany (see Table 1 ). For the Madang-nnh (no neighbourhood hub) model, school closure is approximately 3.5 times less effective compared to the Albany model. workplaces and the wider community (including neighbourhood hubs) than in Albany, highlighting the poorer efficacy of this intervention strategy in a PNG setting. The Madang-nnh model also results in higher household and workplace transmission than the Albany model. Note that while there is a significantly higher proportion of under 17 year old children in Madang (40%) compared to Albany (28%), our field survey indicates that 50% of school age children in Madang do not attend school, hence school closure is less effective in disrupting the transmission chain (i.e., household 1-to-school-to-household 2) compared to Australia. This feature is also present in the rigorous social distancing intervention.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- age child and household school: 1
- age child and illness attack: 1
- Albany model and distancing intervention: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- Albany model and field survey: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
- Albany model and household school: 1, 2, 3, 4
- Albany model and household school household: 1, 2
- Albany model and illness attack: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- Albany model and illness attack rate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- Albany model and intervention strategy: 1, 2
- Albany model and Madang model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- Albany model and Madang model intervention: 1, 2, 3, 4
- Albany model and Madang nnh model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
- distancing intervention and field survey: 1, 2
- distancing intervention and household school: 1, 2, 3
- distancing intervention and household school household: 1, 2
- distancing intervention and illness attack: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- distancing intervention and illness attack rate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- distancing intervention and intervention strategy: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- distancing intervention and Madang model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date