Application of Phylodynamic Tools to Inform the Public Health Response to COVID-19: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Opinions.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
bioinformatics
data
epidemiology
genomic
genomic surveillance
molecular epidemiology
monitoring
pandemic
phylodynamic
phylogenetic
response
surveillance
transmission
variants
virology
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Apr 2023
21 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
09
05
2022
accepted:
27
12
2022
revised:
26
11
2022
medline:
28
2
2023
pubmed:
28
2
2023
entrez:
27
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, scientists have scrambled to collect and analyze SARS-CoV-2 genomic data to inform public health responses to COVID-19 in real time. Open source phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology have rapidly gained popularity for their ability to illuminate spatial-temporal transmission patterns worldwide. However, the utility of such tools to inform public health decision-making for COVID-19 in real time remains to be explored. The aim of this study is to convene experts in public health, infectious diseases, virology, and bioinformatics-many of whom were actively engaged in the COVID-19 response-to discuss and report on the application of phylodynamic tools to inform pandemic responses. In total, 4 focus groups (FGs) occurred between June 2020 and June 2021, covering both the pre- and postvariant strain emergence and vaccination eras of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Participants included national and international academic and government researchers, clinicians, public health practitioners, and other stakeholders recruited through purposive and convenience sampling by the study team. Open-ended questions were developed to prompt discussion. FGs I and II concentrated on phylodynamics for the public health practitioner, while FGs III and IV discussed the methodological nuances of phylodynamic inference. Two FGs per topic area to increase data saturation. An iterative, thematic qualitative framework was used for data analysis. We invited 41 experts to the FGs, and 23 (56%) agreed to participate. Across all the FG sessions, 15 (65%) of the participants were female, 17 (74%) were White, and 5 (22%) were Black. Participants were described as molecular epidemiologists (MEs; n=9, 39%), clinician-researchers (n=3, 13%), infectious disease experts (IDs; n=4, 17%), and public health professionals at the local (PHs; n=4, 17%), state (n=2, 9%), and federal (n=1, 4%) levels. They represented multiple countries in Europe, the United States, and the Caribbean. Nine major themes arose from the discussions: (1) translational/implementation science, (2) precision public health, (3) fundamental unknowns, (4) proper scientific communication, (5) methods of epidemiological investigation, (6) sampling bias, (7) interoperability standards, (8) academic/public health partnerships, and (9) resources. Collectively, participants felt that successful uptake of phylodynamic tools to inform the public health response relies on the strength of academic and public health partnerships. They called for interoperability standards in sequence data sharing, urged careful reporting to prevent misinterpretations, imagined that public health responses could be tailored to specific variants, and cited resource issues that would need to be addressed by policy makers in future outbreaks. This study is the first to detail the viewpoints of public health practitioners and molecular epidemiology experts on the use of viral genomic data to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data gathered during this study provide important information from experts to help streamline the functionality and use of phylodynamic tools for pandemic responses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, scientists have scrambled to collect and analyze SARS-CoV-2 genomic data to inform public health responses to COVID-19 in real time. Open source phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology have rapidly gained popularity for their ability to illuminate spatial-temporal transmission patterns worldwide. However, the utility of such tools to inform public health decision-making for COVID-19 in real time remains to be explored.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to convene experts in public health, infectious diseases, virology, and bioinformatics-many of whom were actively engaged in the COVID-19 response-to discuss and report on the application of phylodynamic tools to inform pandemic responses.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 4 focus groups (FGs) occurred between June 2020 and June 2021, covering both the pre- and postvariant strain emergence and vaccination eras of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Participants included national and international academic and government researchers, clinicians, public health practitioners, and other stakeholders recruited through purposive and convenience sampling by the study team. Open-ended questions were developed to prompt discussion. FGs I and II concentrated on phylodynamics for the public health practitioner, while FGs III and IV discussed the methodological nuances of phylodynamic inference. Two FGs per topic area to increase data saturation. An iterative, thematic qualitative framework was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We invited 41 experts to the FGs, and 23 (56%) agreed to participate. Across all the FG sessions, 15 (65%) of the participants were female, 17 (74%) were White, and 5 (22%) were Black. Participants were described as molecular epidemiologists (MEs; n=9, 39%), clinician-researchers (n=3, 13%), infectious disease experts (IDs; n=4, 17%), and public health professionals at the local (PHs; n=4, 17%), state (n=2, 9%), and federal (n=1, 4%) levels. They represented multiple countries in Europe, the United States, and the Caribbean. Nine major themes arose from the discussions: (1) translational/implementation science, (2) precision public health, (3) fundamental unknowns, (4) proper scientific communication, (5) methods of epidemiological investigation, (6) sampling bias, (7) interoperability standards, (8) academic/public health partnerships, and (9) resources. Collectively, participants felt that successful uptake of phylodynamic tools to inform the public health response relies on the strength of academic and public health partnerships. They called for interoperability standards in sequence data sharing, urged careful reporting to prevent misinterpretations, imagined that public health responses could be tailored to specific variants, and cited resource issues that would need to be addressed by policy makers in future outbreaks.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first to detail the viewpoints of public health practitioners and molecular epidemiology experts on the use of viral genomic data to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data gathered during this study provide important information from experts to help streamline the functionality and use of phylodynamic tools for pandemic responses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36848460
pii: v7i1e39409
doi: 10.2196/39409
pmc: PMC10131930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e39409Informations de copyright
©Shannan N Rich, Veronica Richards, Carla Mavian, Brittany Rife Magalis, Nathan Grubaugh, Sonja A Rasmussen, Simon Dellicour, Bram Vrancken, Christine Carrington, Rebecca Fisk-Hoffman, Demi Danso-Odei, Daniel Chacreton, Jerne Shapiro, Marie Nancy Seraphin, Crystal Hepp, Allison Black, Ann Dennis, Nídia Sequeira Trovão, Anne-Mieke Vandamme, Angela Rasmussen, Michael Lauzardo, Natalie Dean, Marco Salemi, Mattia Prosperi. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 21.04.2023.
Références
Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):565-574
pubmed: 32007145
Microb Genom. 2021 Jun;7(6):
pubmed: 34184982
Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):450-452
pubmed: 32284615
J Med Virol. 2020 Apr;92(4):401-402
pubmed: 31950516
Elife. 2020 Sep 02;9:
pubmed: 32876050
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(6):e1002552
pubmed: 22761556
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 9;117(23):12522-12523
pubmed: 32381734
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 28;12(1):649
pubmed: 33510171
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):710-716
pubmed: 33846610
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Jul;72(1):93-103
pubmed: 29289476
Science. 2020 Oct 30;370(6516):571-575
pubmed: 32913002
mBio. 2021 Aug 31;12(4):e0118821
pubmed: 34281387
Bioinformatics. 2022 Jan 12;38(3):856-860
pubmed: 34672334
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Dec 17;70(50):1731-1734
pubmed: 34914670
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Jan;114:268-272
pubmed: 34863925
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Epidemics. 2018 Jun;23:1-10
pubmed: 29089285
Bioinformatics. 2018 Dec 1;34(23):4121-4123
pubmed: 29790939
Euro Surveill. 2017 Mar 30;22(13):
pubmed: 28382917
Syst Biol. 2020 Sep 1;69(5):884-896
pubmed: 32049340
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016 Mar 14;3:2333393616630466
pubmed: 28462326
Nat Microbiol. 2019 Jan;4(1):10-19
pubmed: 30546099
Science. 2021 Aug 20;373(6557):889-895
pubmed: 34301854
Elife. 2021 Feb 23;10:
pubmed: 33620031
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9):
pubmed: 33571105
Virus Evol. 2017 Aug 03;3(2):vex020
pubmed: 28852573
China CDC Wkly. 2020 Jan 24;2(4):61-62
pubmed: 34594763
Nat Genet. 2021 Jun;53(6):809-816
pubmed: 33972780
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Sep;5(9):e1000520
pubmed: 19779555
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Mar 22;22(2):642-663
pubmed: 33147627
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Mar 22;22(2):631-641
pubmed: 33416890
BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1115-7
pubmed: 11337448