CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Random vs. Nonrandom Mixing in Network Epidemic Models Export

Health Care Management Science, Vol. 5, No. 2. (1 April 2002), pp. 147-155.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


ibschwartz's tags for this article

epidemics mixing network

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

In this paper we compare random and nonrandom mixing patterns for network epidemic models. Several of studies have examined the impact of different mixing patterns using compartmental epidemic models. We extend the work on compartmental models to the case of network epidemic models. We define two nonrandom mixing patterns for a network epidemic model and investigate the impact that these mixing patterns have on a number of epidemic outcomes when compared to random mixing. We find that different mixing assumptions lead to small but statistically significant differences in disease prevalence, cumulative number of new infections, final population size, and network structure. Significant differences in outcomes were more likely to be observed for larger populations and longer time horizons. Sensitivity analysis revealed that greater differences in outcomes between random and nonrandom mixing were associated with a larger incremental mortality rate among infected individuals, a larger average number of partners, and a greater probability of forming new partnerships. When adjusted for the initial population size, differences between random and nonrandom mixing models were approximately constant across all population sizes considered. We also considered the impact that differences between mixing models might have on the cost effectiveness ratio for epidemic control interventions.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.