Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:45:38.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Measles, Mumps, and Rubella: Implications for the Design of Vaccination Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nigel J. Gay
Nigel J. Gay*
Affiliation:
Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, United Kingdom
*
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Ave, NW9 5 EQ, London, UK; e-mail, ngay@phls.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mathematical models of disease transmission are being used increasingly in the design of population-based vaccination programs. Their use is illustrated in a review of some modeling studies that have implications for the use of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Investigations of vaccination strategy options yield predictions for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses. A quantitative understanding of the factors affecting disease transmission enables the setting of targets for vaccination programs and underpins disease elimination initiatives.

Type
From the Fifth International Conference on the Prevention of Infection
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 8 , August 1998 , pp. 570 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Gay, NJ, Pelletier, L, Duclos, P. Modeling the incidence of measles in Canada: an assessment of the options for vaccination policy. Vaccine 1998;16:794–801.Google Scholar
2.Massad, E, Burattini, MN, de Azevedo Neto, RS, Yang, HM, Coutinho, FA, Zanetta, DM. A model-based design of a vaccination strategy against rubella in a non-immunized community of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Epidemiol Infect 1994;112:579–594.Google Scholar
3.Halloran, ME, Cochi, SL, Lieu, TA, Wharton, M, Fehrs, L. Theoretical epidemiologic and morbidity effects of routine varicella immunization of preschool children in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:81–104.Google Scholar
4.Williams, JR, Nokes, DJ, Medley, GF, Anderson, RM. The transmission dynamics of hepatitis B in the UK: a mathematical model for evaluating costs and effectiveness of immunization programs. Epidemiol Infect 1996;116:71–89.Google Scholar
5.Levy-Bruhl, D, Maccario, J, Richardson, S, Guerin, N. Modelisation de la rougeole en France et consequences pour l'age d'administration de la seconde vaccination rougeole-oreillons-rubeole. Bulletin Epidemiologique Hebdomadaire 1998;133–135.Google Scholar
6.Anderson, RM, May, RM. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
7.Anderson, RM, Grenfell, BT. Quantitative investigations of different rubella vaccination policies for the control of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in the United Kingdom. Journal of Hygiene (Cambridge) 1986;96:305–333.Google Scholar
8.Cutts, FT, Robertson, SE, Diaz-Ortega, JL, Samuel, R. Control of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome in developing countries, part 1: burden of disease from CRS. Bull World Health Organ 1997;75:55–68.Google Scholar
9.Babad, HR, Nokes, DJ, Gay, NJ, Miller, E, Morgan-Capner, P, Anderson, RM. Predicting the impact of measles vaccination in England and Wales: model validation and analysis of policy options. Epidemiol Infect 1995;114:319–341.Google Scholar
10.World Health Organization. Strategic plan for the elimination of measles in the European Region. CMDS 01 01 06/10, 03 3, 1997. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar