Search

Background: Outbreak response modelling often involves collaboration among academics, and experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices between two collaboration types. We complemented this with a mini comparison of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a veterinary disease that is controllable by vaccination., Methods: We searched three databases for modelling studies that assessed the impact of an outbreak response. We extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), location studied, and whether at least one author was affiliated to the studied location. We also extracted the outcomes and interventions studied, and model characteristics. Included studies were grouped into two collaboration types: purely academic (papers with only academic affiliations), and mixed (all other combinations) to help investigate differences in modelling patterns between collaboration types in the human disease literature and overall differences with FMD collaboration practices., Results: Human VPDs formed 227 of 252 included studies. Purely academic collaborations dominated the human disease studies (56%). Notably, mixed collaborations increased in the last seven years (2013-2019). Most studies had an author affiliated to an institution in the country studied (75.2%) but this was more likely among the mixed collaborations. Contrasted to the human VPDs, mixed collaborations dominated the FMD literature (56%). Furthermore, FMD studies more often had an author with an affiliation to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation., Conclusion: The increase in mixed collaboration studies over the past seven years could suggest an increase in the uptake of modelling for outbreak response decision-making. We encourage more mixed collaborations between academic and non-academic institutions and the involvement of locally affiliated authors to help ensure that the studies suit local contexts., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no declarations of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.