# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

February  2018, 15(1): 323-335. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018014

## Optimal time to intervene: The case of measles child immunization

 Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, 84248 Bratislava, Slovakia

Received  September 13, 2016 Revised  February 28, 2017 Published  May 2017

The recent measles outbreaks in US and Germany emphasize the importance of sustaining and increasing vaccination rates. In Slovakia, despite mandatory vaccination scheme, decrease in the vaccination rates against measles has been observed in recent years. Different kinds of intervention at the state level, like a law making vaccination a requirement for school entry or education and advertising seem to be the only strategies to improve vaccination coverage. This study aims to analyze the economic effectiveness of intervention in Slovakia. Using real options techniques we determine the level of vaccination rate at which it is optimal to perform intervention. We represent immunization rate of newborns as a stochastic process and intervention as a one-period jump of this process. Sensitivity analysis shows the importance of early intervention in the population with high initial average vaccination coverage. Furthermore, our numerical results demonstrate that the less certain we are about the future development of the immunization rate of newborns, the more valuable is the option to intervene.

Citation: Zuzana Chladná. Optimal time to intervene: The case of measles child immunization. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2018, 15 (1) : 323-335. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018014
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Measles in Slovakia: number of cases and immunization rate of newborns. Source: [19] and [9].
Time development of the average vaccination coverage under different evolution scenarios of immunization rate of newborns.
Expected costs as function of initial average vaccination coverage (left) and initial immunization rate of newborns (right), respectively.
Optimal decisions for different levels of intervention costs: grey = do intervene, black = do not intervene, $t=10$, $\sigma = 0.057$.
Value of the option to intervene. Initial immunization rate of newborns $90\%$ and initial average vaccination coverage $95\%$.
Model inputs.
 Time horizon $T=20$ years Population size $N=400000$ Reproduction number $R_0=17$ Recovery rate $\gamma=0.1$ Birth/death rate $\mu=0.01$ Expected cases $a_0=0.9789$$N, a_1=1.04 Costs per measles case c_0=600€ Intervention costs P\in \langle 0,500000 \rangle € Probability of potential outbreak p_{epi}=0.1 Drift term of immunization rate of newborns \alpha = 0.0076 Volatility of immunization rate of newborns \sigma = 0.057 Discount rate r=1\%  Time horizon T=20 years Population size N=400000 Reproduction number R_0=17 Recovery rate \gamma=0.1 Birth/death rate \mu=0.01 Expected cases a_0=0.9789$$ N$, $a_1=1.04$ Costs per measles case $c_0=600$€ Intervention costs $P\in \langle 0,500000 \rangle$€ Probability of potential outbreak $p_{epi}=0.1$ Drift term of immunization rate of newborns $\alpha = 0.0076$ Volatility of immunization rate of newborns $\sigma = 0.057$ Discount rate $r=1\%$
Savings induced by intervention.
 intervention costs(in thousands of €) savings in exp. costs inital average vacc coverage savings in expected costs 0 8.8% 92% 2.3% 2 6.7% 93% 2.9% 4 4.0% 94% 4.4% 8 3.5% 95% 55.9% 10 2.3% 96% 72.5% 20 2.0% 97% 78.6% 30 1.8% 98% 79.9% (A) Initial immunization rate of newborns $90\%$, initial average vaccination coverage $92\%$, $\sigma =0.057$. (B) Initial immunization rate of newborns $90\%$, initial coverage 10000€, $\sigma =0.057$.
 intervention costs(in thousands of €) savings in exp. costs inital average vacc coverage savings in expected costs 0 8.8% 92% 2.3% 2 6.7% 93% 2.9% 4 4.0% 94% 4.4% 8 3.5% 95% 55.9% 10 2.3% 96% 72.5% 20 2.0% 97% 78.6% 30 1.8% 98% 79.9% (A) Initial immunization rate of newborns $90\%$, initial average vaccination coverage $92\%$, $\sigma =0.057$. (B) Initial immunization rate of newborns $90\%$, initial coverage 10000€, $\sigma =0.057$.
Expected time of first intervention and the expected number of interventions. Intervention costs $P=10000$€, initial average vaccination coverage $\bar x=95\%$ and $\sigma=0.057$.
 Initial immunization rate of newborns Time of first intervention Number of interventionss expected s.e. expected s.e. $90\%$ 6.87 3.79 3.48 3.05 $91\%$ 6.89 3.86 3.20 2.79 $92\%$ 7.92 4.26 3.36 2.81 $93\%$ 7.92 4.34 3.10 2.68 $94\%$ 7.96 4.44 2.89 2.51 $95\%$ 9.19 4.13 3.19 2.71
 Initial immunization rate of newborns Time of first intervention Number of interventionss expected s.e. expected s.e. $90\%$ 6.87 3.79 3.48 3.05 $91\%$ 6.89 3.86 3.20 2.79 $92\%$ 7.92 4.26 3.36 2.81 $93\%$ 7.92 4.34 3.10 2.68 $94\%$ 7.96 4.44 2.89 2.51 $95\%$ 9.19 4.13 3.19 2.71
 [1] Shuhua Zhang, Xinyu Wang, Hua Li. Modeling and computation of water management by real options. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 81-103. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017038 [2] Bruno Buonomo, Giuseppe Carbone, Alberto d'Onofrio. Effect of seasonality on the dynamics of an imitation-based vaccination model with public health intervention. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2018, 15 (1) : 299-321. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018013 [3] Dušan M. Stipanović, Christopher Valicka, Claire J. Tomlin, Thomas R. Bewley. Safe and reliable coverage control. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (1) : 31-48. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.31 [4] Tomás Caraballo, Mohamed El Fatini, Roger Pettersson, Regragui Taki. A stochastic SIRI epidemic model with relapse and media coverage. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2018, 23 (8) : 3483-3501. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018250 [5] M. Predescu, R. Levins, T. Awerbuch-Friedlander. Analysis of a nonlinear system for community intervention in mosquito control. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (3) : 605-622. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.605 [6] Gechun Liang, Wei Wei. Optimal switching at Poisson random intervention times. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (5) : 1483-1505. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016008 [7] Jing Ge, Ling Lin, Lai Zhang. A diffusive SIS epidemic model incorporating the media coverage impact in the heterogeneous environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (7) : 2763-2776. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017134 [8] Penka Georgieva, Aleksey Zinger. Real orientations, real Gromov-Witten theory, and real enumerative geometry. Electronic Research Announcements, 2017, 24: 87-99. doi: 10.3934/era.2017.24.010 [9] Julijana Gjorgjieva, Kelly Smith, Gerardo Chowell, Fabio Sánchez, Jessica Snyder, Carlos Castillo-Chavez. The Role of Vaccination in the Control of SARS. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2005, 2 (4) : 753-769. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.753 [10] Dennis L. Chao, Dobromir T. Dimitrov. Seasonality and the effectiveness of mass vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2016, 13 (2) : 249-259. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015001 [11] M. D. Troutt, S. H. Hou, W. K. Pang. Multiple workshift options in aggregrate production Multiple workshift options in aggregrate production. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (4) : 387-398. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.387 [12] Xiaoyu Xing, Hailiang Yang. American type geometric step options. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (3) : 549-560. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.549 [13] Kristin R. Swanson, Ellsworth C. Alvord, Jr, J. D. Murray. Dynamics of a model for brain tumors reveals a small window for therapeutic intervention. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2004, 4 (1) : 289-295. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2004.4.289 [14] Yongli Cai, Yun Kang, Weiming Wang. Global stability of the steady states of an epidemic model incorporating intervention strategies. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (5&6) : 1071-1089. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017056 [15] Jingli Ren, Dandan Zhu, Haiyan Wang. Spreading-vanishing dichotomy in information diffusion in online social networks with intervention. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (4) : 1843-1865. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018240 [16] Frank Sottile. The special Schubert calculus is real. Electronic Research Announcements, 1999, 5: 35-39. [17] Edson de Faria, Pablo Guarino. Real bounds and Lyapunov exponents. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2016, 36 (4) : 1957-1982. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016.36.1957 [18] Peter W. Bates, Ji Li, Mingji Zhang. Singular fold with real noise. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2016, 21 (7) : 2091-2107. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016038 [19] Bruno Buonomo. A simple analysis of vaccination strategies for rubella. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (3) : 677-687. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.677 [20] Eunha Shim. Prioritization of delayed vaccination for pandemic influenza. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (1) : 95-112. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.95

2018 Impact Factor: 1.313