Prioritizing Indicators for Rapid Response in Global Health Security: A Bayesian Network Approach

Abroon Qazi; Mecit Can Emre Simsekler; M. K. S. Al-Mhdawi

doi:10.1007/s13753-024-00570-w

Volume 15 Issue 4

Aug. 2024

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2024 > 15(4): 536-551

Abroon Qazi, Mecit Can Emre Simsekler, M. K. S. Al-Mhdawi. Prioritizing Indicators for Rapid Response in Global Health Security: A Bayesian Network Approach[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(4): 536-551. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00570-w

Citation:

Abroon Qazi, Mecit Can Emre Simsekler, M. K. S. Al-Mhdawi. Prioritizing Indicators for Rapid Response in Global Health Security: A Bayesian Network Approach[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2024, 15(4): 536-551. doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00570-w

Citation:

PDF

Prioritizing Indicators for Rapid Response in Global Health Security: A Bayesian Network Approach

doi: 10.1007/s13753-024-00570-w

1. School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, 26666, UAE;
2. Department of Management Science and Engineering, Khalifa University of Science & Technology, Abu Dhabi, 127788, UAE;
3. School of Computing, Engineering & Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK

Funds:

The work in this paper was supported, in part, by the Faculty Research Grant (FRG23-E-B91) from the American University of Sharjah.

Accepted Date: 2024-06-30

Available Online: 2024-10-26

Publish Date: 2024-07-16

Abstract

Abstract

This study explored a Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) approach, developing two distinct models for prioritizing the seven indicators related to the “rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic” category within the context of both the specific category and the Global Health Security Index (GHS index). Utilizing data from the 2021 GHS index, the methodology involves rigorous preprocessing, the application of the augmented naive Bayes algorithm for structural learning, and k-fold cross-validation. Key findings show unique perspectives in both BBN models. In the mutual value of information analysis, “linking public health and security authorities” emerged as the key predictor for the “rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic” category, while “emergency preparedness and response planning” assumed precedence for the GHS index. Sensitivity analysis highlighted the critical role of “emergency preparedness and response planning” and “linking public health and security authorities” in extreme performance states, with “access to communications infrastructure” and “trade and travel restrictions” exhibiting varied significance. The BBN models exhibit high predictive accuracy, achieving 83.3% and 82.3% accuracy for extreme states in “rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic” and the GHS index, respectively. This study contributes to the literature on GHS by modeling the dependencies among various indicators of the rapid response dimension of the GHS index and highlighting their relative importance based on the mutual value of information and sensitivity analyses.
- Bayesian belief networks,
- Global health security,
- Indicators,
- Mitigation,
- Policy implications,
- Rapid response

FullText(HTML)

References(46)

References

[1]	Ab Aziz, N.F., F.W. Akashah, and A. Abdul Aziz. 2019. Conceptual framework for risk communication between emergency response team and management team at healthcare facilities: A Malaysian perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 41: Article 101282.
[2]	Al Nuairi, A., M.C.E. Simsekler, A. Qazi, and A. Sleptchenko. 2023. A data-driven Bayesian belief network model for exploring patient experience drivers in healthcare sector. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05437-9.
[3]	Albreiki, S., M.C.E. Simsekler, A. Qazi, and A. Bouabid. 2024. Assessment of the organizational factors in incident management practices in healthcare: A tree augmented naive Bayes model. PLOS ONE 19: Article e0299485.
[4]	Assefa, Y., P.S. Hill, C.F. Gilks, W.V. Damme, R.V.D. Pas, S. Woldeyohannes, and S. Reid. 2021. Global health security and universal health coverage: Understanding convergences and divergences for a synergistic response. PLOS ONE 15: Article e0244555.
[5]	Ayre, K.K., C.A. Caldwell, J. Stinson, and W.G. Landis. 2014. Analysis of regional scale risk of whirling disease in populations of Colorado and Rio Grande cutthroat trout using a Bayesian belief network model. Risk Analysis 34: 1589-1605.
[6]	BayesFusion. 2017. GeNIe modeler-user manual. https://support.bayesfusion.com/docs/GeNIe/. Accessed 24 Jul 2017.
[7]	Bell, J.A., and J.B. Nuzzo. 2021. Global Health Security Index: Advancing collective action and accountability amid global crisis. www.GHSIndex.org. Accessed 25 Nov 2023.
[8]	Bruinen de Bruin, Y., A.-S. Lequarre, J. Mccourt, P. Clevestig, F. Pigazzani, M. Zare Jeddi, C. Colosio, and M. Goulart. 2020. Initial impacts of global risk mitigation measures taken during the combatting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety Science 128: Article 104773.
[9]	Chiossi, S., S. Tsolova, and M. Ciotti. 2021. Assessing public health emergency preparedness: A scoping review on recent tools and methods. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 56: Article 102104.
[10]	Cook, J.D., D.M. Williams, D.P. Walsh, and T.J. Hefley. 2023. Bayesian forecasting of disease spread with little or no local data. Scientific Reports 13: Article 8137.
[11]	Cooper, A., F. Mazzeo, P. Waterson, M.S. Young, and D. Louis. 2023. The use of Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) to probe deeper into railway safety management systems-Two studies from Great Britain and Italy. Applied Ergonomics 109: Article 103968.
[12]	Cox, R., C.W. Revie, D. Hurnik, and J. Sanchez. 2016. Use of Bayesian belief network techniques to explore the interaction of biosecurity practices on the probability of porcine disease occurrence in Canada. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 131: 20-30.
[13]	Fakhruddin, B., K. Blanchard, and D. Ragupathy. 2020. Are we there yet? The transition from response to recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic. Progress in Disaster Science 7: Article 100102.
[14]	Gwenzi, W., E.C. Skirmuntt, T. Musvuugwa, C. Teta, D. Halabowski, and P. Rzymski. 2022. Grappling with (re)-emerging infectious zoonoses: Risk assessment, mitigation framework, and future directions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 82: Article 103350.
[15]	Hossain, N.U.I., F. Nur, S. Hosseini, R. Jaradat, M. Marufuzzaman, and S.M. Puryear. 2019. A Bayesian network based approach for modeling and assessing resilience: A case study of a full service deep water port. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 189: 378-396.
[16]	Hosseini, S., and D. Ivanov. 2020. Bayesian networks for supply chain risk, resilience and ripple effect analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 161: Article 113649.
[17]	Husnayain, A., A. Fuad, and E.C.-Y. Su. 2020. Applications of Google Search Trends for risk communication in infectious disease management: A case study of the COVID-19 outbreak in Taiwan. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 95: 221-223.
[18]	Ji, Y., J. Shao, B. Tao, H. Song, Z. Li, and J. Wang. 2021. Are we ready to deal with a global COVID-19 pandemic? Rethinking countries’ capacity based on the Global Health Security Index. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 106: 289-294.
[19]	Kachali, H., I. Haavisto, R.-L. Leskelä, A. Väljä, and M. Nuutinen. 2022. Are preparedness indices reflective of pandemic preparedness? A COVID-19 reality check. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 77: Article 103074.
[20]	Khatri, R.B., A. Endalamaw, D. Erku, E. Wolka, F. Nigatu, A. Zewdie, and Y. Assefa. 2023. Preparedness, impacts, and responses of public health emergencies towards health security: Qualitative synthesis of evidence. Archives of Public Health 81: Article 208.
[21]	Lee, K., C.Z. Worsnop, K.A. Grépin, and A. Kamradt-Scott. 2020. Global coordination on cross-border travel and trade measures crucial to COVID-19 response. The Lancet 395: 1593-1595.
[22]	Leichtweis, B.G., L. De Faria Silva, F.L. Da Silva, and L.A. Peternelli. 2021. How the global health security index and environment factor influence the spread of COVID-19: A country level analysis. One Health 12: Article 100235.
[23]	Lencucha, R., and S. Bandara. 2021. Trust, risk, and the challenge of information sharing during a health emergency. Globalization and Health 17: Article 21.
[24]	Liao, Y., B. Xu, X. Liu, J. Wang, S. Hu, W. Huang, K. Luo, and L. Gao. 2018. Using a Bayesian belief network model for early warning of death and severe risk of HFMD in Hunan Province, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 32: 1531-1544.
[25]	Liao, Y., B. Xu, J. Wang, and X. Liu. 2017. A new method for assessing the risk of infectious disease outbreak. Scientific Reports 7: Article 40084.
[26]	Liu, L.-Y., W.-N. Wu, and D.A. Mcentire. 2021. Six Cs of pandemic emergency management: A case study of Taiwan’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 64: Article 102516.
[27]	Marcot, B.G., and A.M. Hanea. 2021. What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis?. Computational Statistics 36: 2009-2031.
[28]	Motwani, A., P.K. Shukla, and M. Pawar. 2022. Ubiquitous and smart healthcare monitoring frameworks based on machine learning: A comprehensive review. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 134: Article 102431.
[29]	Nawaz, A., X. Su, M.Q. Barkat, S. Asghar, A. Asad, F. Basit, S. Iqbal, H. Zahoor, and S.A. Raheel Shah. 2020. Epidemic spread and its management through governance and leadership response influencing the arising challenges around COVID-19 in Pakistan-A lesson learnt for low income countries with limited resource. Frontiers in Public Health 8: Article 573431.
[30]	Pereira, J., P. Contreras, D.C. Morais, and P. Arroyo-López. 2022. Multi-criteria ordered clustering of countries in the Global Health Security Index. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 84: Article 101331.
[31]	Qazi, A. 2024. Exploring the impact of global competitiveness pillars on sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 105: Article 107404.
[32]	Qazi, A., and M.S. Khan. 2021. Exploring probabilistic network-based modeling of multidimensional factors associated with country risk. Risk Analysis 41: 911-928.
[33]	Qazi, A., and M.C.E. Simsekler. 2020. Assessment of humanitarian crises and disaster risk exposure using data-driven Bayesian networks. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 52: Article 101938.
[34]	Qazi, A., M.C.E. Simsekler, and M. Akram. 2021. Efficacy of early warning systems in assessing country-level risk exposure to COVID-19. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 12: 2352-2366.
[35]	Qazi, A., M.C.E. Simsekler, and B. Gaudenzi. 2022. Prioritizing multidimensional interdependent factors influencing COVID-19 risk. Risk Analysis 42: 143-161.
[36]	Razavi, A., N. Erondu, and E. Okereke. 2020. The Global Health Security Index: What value does it add? BMJ Glob Health 5(4): Article e002477.
[37]	Sarmiento, J.P., G. Hoberman, M. Ilcheva, A. Asgary, A.M. Majano, S. Poggione, and L.R. Duran. 2015. Private sector and disaster risk reduction: The cases of Bogota, Miami, Kingston, San Jose, Santiago, and Vancouver. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14: 225-237.
[38]	Simsek, S., A. Dag, T. Tiahrt, and A. Oztekin. 2021. A Bayesian belief network-based probabilistic mechanism to determine patient no-show risk categories. Omega 100: Article 102296.
[39]	Simsekler, M.C.E., and A. Qazi. 2022. Adoption of a data-driven Bayesian belief network investigating organizational factors that influence patient safety. Risk Analysis 42: 1277-1293.
[40]	Simsekler, M.C.E., C. Rodrigues, A. Qazi, S. Ellahham, and A. Ozonoff. 2021. A comparative study of patient and staff safety evaluation using tree-based machine learning algorithms. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 208: Article 107416.
[41]	Vizanko, B., L. Kadinski, A. Ostfeld, and E.Z. Berglund. 2024. Social distancing, water demand changes, and quality of drinking water during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable Cities and Society 102: Article 105210.
[42]	Wennman, I., C. Jacobson, E. Carlström, A. Hyltander, and A. Khorram-Manesh. 2022. Organizational changes needed in disasters and public health emergencies: A qualitative study among managers at a major hospital. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 13(4): 481-494.
[43]	Werner, C., T. Bedford, R.M. Cooke, A.M. Hanea, and O. Morales-Nápoles. 2017. Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions. European Journal of Operational Research 258: 801-819.
[44]	Zawadzki, M., and G. Montibeller. 2023. A framework for supporting health capability-based planning: Identifying and structuring health capabilities. Risk Analysis 43: 78-96.
[45]	Zhang, X.-X., Y.-Z. Jin, Y.-H. Lu, L.-L. Huang, C.-X. Wu, S. Lv, Z. Chen, H. Xiang, and X.-N. Zhou. 2023. Infectious disease control: From health security strengthening to health systems improvement at global level. Global Health Research and Policy 8: Article 38.
[46]	Zhou, Z., X. Yu, Z. Zhu, D. Zhou, and H. Qi. 2023. Development and application of a Bayesian network-based model for systematically reducing safety risks in the commercial air transportation system. Safety Science 157: Article 105942.