RESUMO
Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian.
Assuntos
Pesquisadores , Relatório de Pesquisa , Humanos , Poder PsicológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Outbreak response modelling often involves collaboration among academics, and experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices between two collaboration types. We complemented this with a mini comparison of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a veterinary disease that is controllable by vaccination. METHODS: We searched three databases for modelling studies that assessed the impact of an outbreak response. We extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), location studied, and whether at least one author was affiliated to the studied location. We also extracted the outcomes and interventions studied, and model characteristics. Included studies were grouped into two collaboration types: purely academic (papers with only academic affiliations), and mixed (all other combinations) to help investigate differences in modelling patterns between collaboration types in the human disease literature and overall differences with FMD collaboration practices. RESULTS: Human VPDs formed 227 of 252 included studies. Purely academic collaborations dominated the human disease studies (56%). Notably, mixed collaborations increased in the last seven years (2013-2019). Most studies had an author affiliated to an institution in the country studied (75.2%) but this was more likely among the mixed collaborations. Contrasted to the human VPDs, mixed collaborations dominated the FMD literature (56%). Furthermore, FMD studies more often had an author with an affiliation to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation. CONCLUSION: The increase in mixed collaboration studies over the past seven years could suggest an increase in the uptake of modelling for outbreak response decision-making. We encourage more mixed collaborations between academic and non-academic institutions and the involvement of locally affiliated authors to help ensure that the studies suit local contexts.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Febre Aftosa , Doenças Preveníveis por Vacina , Animais , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Doenças Preveníveis por Vacina/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Surtos de Doenças/veterinária , Febre Aftosa/epidemiologia , Febre Aftosa/prevenção & controleRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Rapid outbreak response vaccination is a strategy for measles control and elimination. Measles vaccines must be stored and transported within a specified temperature range, but this can present significant challenges when targeting remote populations. Measles vaccine licensure for delivery outside cold chain (OCC) could provide more vaccine transport/storage space without ice packs, and a solution to shorten response times. However, due to vaccine safety and wastage considerations, the OCC strategy will require other operational changes, potentially including the use of 1-dose (monodose) instead of 10-dose vials, requiring larger transport/storage equipment currently achieved with 10-dose vials. These trade-offs require quantitative comparisons of vaccine delivery options to evaluate their relative benefits. METHODS: We developed a modelling framework combining elements of the vaccine supply chain - cold chain, vial, team, and transport equipment types - with a measles transmission dynamics model to compare vaccine delivery options. We compared 10 strategies resulting from combinations of the vaccine supply elements and grouped into three main classes: OCC, partial cold chain (PCC), and full cold chain (FCC). For each strategy, we explored a campaign with 20 teams sequentially targeting 5 locations with 100,000 individuals each. We characterised the time needed to freeze ice packs and complete the campaign (campaign duration), vaccination coverage, and cases averted, assuming a fixed pre-deployment delay before campaign commencement. We performed sensitivity analyses of the pre-deployment delay, population sizes, and two team allocation schemes. RESULTS: The OCC, PCC, and FCC strategies achieve campaign durations of 50, 51, and 52 days, respectively. Nine of the ten strategies can achieve a vaccination coverage of 80%, and OCC averts the most cases. DISCUSSION: The OCC strategy, therefore, presents improved operational and epidemiological outcomes relative to current practice and the other options considered.
Assuntos
Vacina contra Sarampo , Sarampo , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Armazenamento de Medicamentos , Humanos , Sarampo/epidemiologia , Sarampo/prevenção & controle , RefrigeraçãoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases continue to threaten public health, despite the proven effectiveness of vaccines. Interventions such as vaccination, social distancing and palliative care are usually implemented, either individually or in combination, to control these outbreaks. Mathematical models are often used to assess the impact of these interventions and for supporting outbreak response decision making. The objectives of this systematic review, which covers all human vaccine-preventable diseases, are to determine the relative impact of vaccination compared with other outbreak interventions, and to ascertain the temporal trends in the use of modelling in outbreak response decision making. We will also identify gaps and opportunities for future research through a comparison with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak response modelling literature, which has good examples of the use of modelling to inform outbreak response intervention decision making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and some preprint servers from the start of indexing to 15 January 2020. Inclusion: modelling studies, published in English, that use a mechanistic approach to evaluate the impact of an outbreak intervention. Exclusion: reviews, and studies that do not describe or use mechanistic models or do not describe an outbreak. We will extract data from the included studies such as their objectives, model types and composition, and conclusions on the impact of the intervention. We will ascertain the impact of models on outbreak response decision making through visualisation of time trends in the use of the models. We will also present our results in narrative style. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not require any ethics approval since it only involves scientific articles. The review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at various conferences fitting its scope. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020160803.