IMPACT: A Generic Tool for Modelling and Simulating Public Health Policy

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Populations are under-served by local health policies and management of resources. This partly reflects a lack of realistically complex models to enable appraisal of a wide range of potential options. Rising computing power coupled with advances in machine learning and healthcare information now enables such models to be constructed and executed. However, such models are not generally accessible to public health practitioners who often lack the requisite technical knowledge or skills.

Objectives: To design and develop a system for creating, executing and analysing the results of simulated public health and health-care policy interventions, in ways that are accessible and usable by modellers and policy-makers.

Methods: The system requirements were captured and analysed in parallel with the statistical method development for the simulation engine. From the resulting software requirement specification the system architecture was designed, implemented and tested. A model for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was created and validated against empirical data.

Results: The system was successfully used to create and validate the CHD model. The initial validation results show concordance between the simulation results and the empirical data.

Conclusions: We have demonstrated the ability to connect health policy-modellers and policy-makers in a unified system, thereby making population health models easier to share, maintain, reuse and deploy.

• References

• 1 Morabia A. A history of epidemiologic methods and concepts. Birkhauser; 2004
  Google Scholar
• 2 Guo Z, Gill TM, Allore HG. Modeling repeated time-to-event health conditions with discontinuous risk intervals. An example of a longitudinal study of functional disability among older persons. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (02) 107-116.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Radespiel-Tröger M, Daugs A, Meyer M. A simulation model for small-area cancer incidence rates. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43 (05) 493-498.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pfeifer B, Wurz M, Hanser F, Seger M, Netzer M, Osl M. et al. An epidemiological modeling and data integration framework. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (03) 290-296.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Capewell S, Allender S, Critchley J, Lloyd-Williams F, O’Flaherty M, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Modelling the UK burden of cardiovascular disease to 2020 A Research Report for the Cardio & Vascular Coalition and the British Heart Foundation. BHF 2008 http://www.bhf.org.uk/cvc/working_groups/modelling_burden_of_cvd.aspx Accessed 14/04/11
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Response from the Faculty of Public Health to the Department of Health Consultation on Economic Modeling of a Policy of Vascular Checks http://www.fphm.org.uk/advocacy/consultations/downloads/2008/DH_vascular_checks_0808.pdf Accessed 14/04/11
  PubMed
• 7 Ford E, Ajani U, Croft J, Critchley J, Labarthe D, Kottke T. et al. Explaining the decrease in US deaths from coronary disease, 1980-2000. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (23) 2388.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Moreau Y, Antal P, Fannes G, De Moor B. Probabilistic graphical models for computational biomedicine. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (02) 161-168.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Buchan I, Winn J, Bishop C. A unified modelling approach to data intensive healthcare. In: Hey T. et al. (eds). The Fourth Paradigm: Data Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Press; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 10 Taylor-Robinson D, Milton B, Lloyd-Williams F, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. Policy-makers’ attitudes to decision support models for coronary heart disease: a qualitative study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13 (04) 209-214.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 De Roure D, Goble C, Stevens R. The Design and Realisation of the myExperiment Virtual Research Environment for Social Sharing of Workflows. Future Generation Computer Systems 2008; 25: 561-567.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wei L. The accelerated failure time model: A useful alternative to the Cox regression model in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11: 1871-1879.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Banks J, Nelson B L, Nicol D M. Discrete-Event System Simulation. Prentice Hall, 2009
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Prentice R, Kaldeisch J, Flournoy A, Farewell N and Breslow N. The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 1978; 34 (04) 541-554.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Putter H, Fiocco M, and Geskus R. Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 2389-2430.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Lloyd-Jones D, Leip E, Larson M, D’Agostino R, Beiser A, Wilson P, Wolf P, Levy D. Prediction of life-time risk for cardiovascular disease by risk factor burden at 50 years of age. Circulation 2006; 113 (06) 791-798.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 van Laarhoven P, and Aarts E. Simulated annealing: theory and applications. Kluwer; 1987
  Google Scholar
• 18 Lin J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 1991; 37 (01) 145-151.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Jensen F, Nielsen T. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer Verlag; 2007
  Google Scholar
• 20 Capewell S, Murphy NF, MacIntyre K, Frame S, Stewart S, Chalmers JWT. et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes in 133 429 emergency patients admitted with angina or myocardial infarction in Scotland, 1990-2000: population-based cohort study. British Medical Journal 2006; 92 (11) 1563.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Ford E, Ajani U, Croft J, Critchley J, Labarthe D, Kottke T, Giles W, Capewell S. Explaining the decrease in U. S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980-2000. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (23) 2388-2398.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Capewell S, Pell J, Morrison C, McMurray J. Increasing the impact of cardiological treatments. Eur Heart J 1999; 20 (19) 1386-1392.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Wilkins J, Ning H, Berry J, Lloyd-Jones D. Lifetime Risk for Total Cardiovascular Disease by Sex and Risk Factor Burden: Cardiovascular Lifetime Risk Pooling Project. Circulation 2010; 122: A21180.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Prospective Studies Collaboration.. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360: 1903-1913.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Prospective Studies Collaboration Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55000 vascular deaths. Lancet 2007; 370: 1829-1839.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 McQueen M, Hawken S, Wang X, Ounpuu S, Sniderman A, Probstfield J, Steyn K, Sanderson J, Hasani M, Volkova E, Kazmi K, Yusuf S. Lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins as risk markers of myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTER-HEART study): a case-control study. Lancet 2008; 372 9634 224-233.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Ainsworth J, Buchan I. e-Labs and Work Objects: Towards Digital Health Economies. In Proceedings of The First International ICST Conference on Communications Infrastructure, Systems and Applications in Europe (EuropeComm 2009), LNICST, Springer, London, UK, August 2009
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Bechhofer S, Ainsworth J, Bhagat J, Buchan I, Couch P, Cruickshank D, Delderfield M, Dunlop I, Gamble M, Goble C, Michaelides D, Missier P, Owen S, Newman D, De Roure D, Sufi S. Why Linked Data is Not Enough for Scientists. presented at the Sixth IEEE e-Science conference (e-Science 2010), Brisbane, Australia, 2010
  PubMedGoogle Scholar