Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSpecht, Ivan
dc.contributor.authorSani, Kian
dc.contributor.authorBotti-Lodovico, Yolanda
dc.contributor.authorHughes, Michael
dc.contributor.authorHeumann, Kristin
dc.contributor.authorBronson, Amy
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, John
dc.contributor.authorBaron, Emily
dc.contributor.authorParrie, Eric
dc.contributor.authorGlennon, Olivia
dc.contributor.authorFry, Ben
dc.contributor.authorColubri, Andres
dc.contributor.authorSabeti, Pardis C.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:08:11.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:45:41Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:45:41Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-03
dc.date.submitted2022-04-07
dc.identifier.citation<p>Specht I, Sani K, Botti-Lodovico Y, Hughes M, Heumann K, Bronson A, Marshall J, Baron E, Parrie E, Glennon O, Fry B, Colubri A, Sabeti PC. The case for altruism in institutional diagnostic testing. Sci Rep. 2022 Feb 3;12(1):1857. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02605-4. PMID: 35115545; PMCID: PMC8813946. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02605-4">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn2045-2322 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41598-021-02605-4
dc.identifier.pmid35115545
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/27584
dc.description.abstractAmid COVID-19, many institutions deployed vast resources to test their members regularly for safe reopening. This self-focused approach, however, not only overlooks surrounding communities but also remains blind to community transmission that could breach the institution. To test the relative merits of a more altruistic strategy, we built an epidemiological model that assesses the differential impact on case counts when institutions instead allocate a proportion of their tests to members' close contacts in the larger community. We found that testing outside the institution benefits the institution in all plausible circumstances, with the optimal proportion of tests to use externally landing at 45% under baseline model parameters. Our results were robust to local prevalence, secondary attack rate, testing capacity, and contact reporting level, yielding a range of optimal community testing proportions from 18 to 58%. The model performed best under the assumption that community contacts are known to the institution; however, it still demonstrated a significant benefit even without complete knowledge of the contact network.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=35115545&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectComputational biology and bioinformatics
dc.subjectComputational models
dc.subjectHealth policy
dc.subjectInfectious diseases
dc.subjectBioinformatics
dc.subjectComputational Biology
dc.subjectHealth Policy
dc.subjectInfectious Disease
dc.subjectOccupational Health and Industrial Hygiene
dc.subjectVirus Diseases
dc.titleThe case for altruism in institutional diagnostic testing
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleScientific reports
dc.source.volume12
dc.source.issue1
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&amp;context=covid19&amp;unstamped=1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/covid19/383
dc.identifier.contextkey28518648
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-23T15:45:41Z
html.description.abstract<p>Amid COVID-19, many institutions deployed vast resources to test their members regularly for safe reopening. This self-focused approach, however, not only overlooks surrounding communities but also remains blind to community transmission that could breach the institution. To test the relative merits of a more altruistic strategy, we built an epidemiological model that assesses the differential impact on case counts when institutions instead allocate a proportion of their tests to members' close contacts in the larger community. We found that testing outside the institution benefits the institution in all plausible circumstances, with the optimal proportion of tests to use externally landing at 45% under baseline model parameters. Our results were robust to local prevalence, secondary attack rate, testing capacity, and contact reporting level, yielding a range of optimal community testing proportions from 18 to 58%. The model performed best under the assumption that community contacts are known to the institution; however, it still demonstrated a significant benefit even without complete knowledge of the contact network.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathcovid19/383
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Microbiology and Physiological Systems
dc.contributor.departmentProgram in Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology
dc.source.pages1857


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
s41598_021_02605_4.pdf
Size:
942.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.