Balancing health and socioeconomic impacts: A uniform framework for evaluating non-pharmaceutical interventions

This paper introduces a uniform evaluation framework for assessing the effectiveness of past non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in managing infectious diseases, taking into account the cultural and social differences between countries. The framework enables quantifying and finding the optimal balance of both the health and socioeconomic impacts of NPIs. The aim is to assist policymakers in understanding which NPIs lead to the optimal balance by highlighting unnecessary costs - the costs that could be avoided while maintaining the same infection rates. To assess the extent of unnecessary socioeconomic consequences experienced by a country during a past epidemic of infectious diseases, we use the following approach. First, we develop a model that predicts the number of infections from NPIs in a country. Second, we estimate the socioeconomic costs (SEC) of the NPIs universally for countries included in the study. Third, we develop a model that prescribes the NPI plans with the optimal trade-off between the number of infections and the SEC. Fourth, we create a model that specifically adjusts each country's SEC. Finally, we provide additional analysis to increase comprehension of the effects of NPIs. Demonstrated through an analysis of COVID-19 pandemic responses in 17 countries, the study offers a systematic presentation of the framework and a concrete examination of the integrated effects of NPIs. It provides insights into interventions' direct and indirect consequences, offering guidance for future epidemic responses. The framework enables a systematic understanding of the effects of the NPIs applied, acknowledging the national diversity in health measure acceptance and implementation. This allows for fair analysis across countries, identifying and displaying the economic, social, and health-related costs of suboptimal NPI strategies, i.e., unnecessary costs. The framework is applicable for any infectious disease, NPIs, or country, assuming the medical interventions are similar, e.g., timing and amount of vaccination.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-06-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324232
Primary Topic
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Balancing health and socioeconomic impacts: A uniform framework for evaluating non-pharmaceutical interventions

David Susič, Jana Javornik, Sophie Vandepitte, Franc Strle et al.
PLoS ONE
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
article

Balancing health and socioeconomic impacts: A uniform framework for evaluating non-pharmaceutical interventions

David Susič, Jana Javornik, Sophie Vandepitte, Franc Strle, Delphine De Smedt, Nina Reščič, Vito Janko, Matjaž Gams, Anže Marinko, Mitja Luštrek, Aljoša Vodopija, Zoja Anžur
article en

Abstract

This paper introduces a uniform evaluation framework for assessing the effectiveness of past non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in managing infectious diseases, taking into account the cultural and social differences between countries. The framework enables quantifying and finding the optimal balance of both the health and socioeconomic impacts of NPIs. The aim is to assist policymakers in understanding which NPIs lead to the optimal balance by highlighting unnecessary costs - the costs that could be avoided while maintaining the same infection rates. To assess the extent of unnecessary socioeconomic consequences experienced by a country during a past epidemic of infectious diseases, we use the following approach. First, we develop a model that predicts the number of infections from NPIs in a country. Second, we estimate the socioeconomic costs (SEC) of the NPIs universally for countries included in the study. Third, we develop a model that prescribes the NPI plans with the optimal trade-off between the number of infections and the SEC. Fourth, we create a model that specifically adjusts each country's SEC. Finally, we provide additional analysis to increase comprehension of the effects of NPIs. Demonstrated through an analysis of COVID-19 pandemic responses in 17 countries, the study offers a systematic presentation of the framework and a concrete examination of the integrated effects of NPIs. It provides insights into interventions' direct and indirect consequences, offering guidance for future epidemic responses. The framework enables a systematic understanding of the effects of the NPIs applied, acknowledging the national diversity in health measure acceptance and implementation. This allows for fair analysis across countries, identifying and displaying the economic, social, and health-related costs of suboptimal NPI strategies, i.e., unnecessary costs. The framework is applicable for any infectious disease, NPIs, or country, assuming the medical interventions are similar, e.g., timing and amount of vaccination.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(6)
University of Leeds (GB), Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI), Jožef Stefan Institute (SI), Ghent University (BE), Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School (SI), Institute of Contemporary History (SI)
Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
COVID-19 epidemiological studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.