title: The potential impact of immunization campaign budget re-allocation on global eradication of paediatric infectious diseases.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The potential benefits of coordinating infectious disease eradication programs that use campaigns such as supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) should not be over-looked. One example of a coordinated approach is an adaptive "sequential strategy": first, all annual SIA budget is dedicated to the eradication of a single infectious disease; once that disease is eradicated, the annual SIA budget is re-focussed on eradicating a second disease, etc. Herd immunity suggests that a sequential strategy may eradicate several infectious diseases faster than a non-adaptive "simultaneous strategy" of dividing annual budget equally among eradication programs for those diseases. However, mathematical modeling is required to understand the potential extent of this effect.
  
  
  METHODS
  Our objective was to illustrate how budget allocation strategies can interact with the nonlinear nature of disease transmission to determine time to eradication of several infectious diseases under different budget allocation strategies. Using a mathematical transmission model, we analyzed three hypothetical vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in three different countries. A central decision-maker can distribute funding among SIA programs for these three diseases according to either a sequential strategy or a simultaneous strategy. We explored the time to eradication under these two strategies under a range of scenarios.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For a certain range of annual budgets, all three diseases can be eradicated relatively quickly under the sequential strategy, whereas eradication never occurs under the simultaneous strategy. However, moderate changes to total SIA budget, SIA frequency, order of eradication, or funding disruptions can create disproportionately large differences in the time and budget required for eradication under the sequential strategy. We find that the predicted time to eradication can be very sensitive to small differences in the rate of case importation between the countries. We also find that the time to eradication of all three diseases is not necessarily lowest when the least transmissible disease is targeted first.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Relatively modest differences in budget allocation strategies in the near-term can result in surprisingly large long-term differences in time required to eradicate, as a result of the amplifying effects of herd immunity and the nonlinearities of disease transmission. More sophisticated versions of such models may be useful to large international donors or other organizations as a planning or portfolio optimization tool, where choices must be made regarding how much funding to dedicate to different infectious disease eradication efforts.
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Canada.
authors.forename: Tiffany
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Fitzpatrick
authors.forename: Chris T
authors.initials: CT
authors.lastname: Bauch
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D003140:Communicable Disease Control / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003141:Communicable Diseases / Q000276:immunology*; D060740:Disease Eradication / Q000191:economics*; D018562:Disease Transmission, Infectious / Q000517:prevention & control* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014943:Global Health / Q000191:economics; D006293:Health Promotion; D006801:Humans; D032521:Immunity, Herd; D017589:Immunization Programs / Q000191:economics*; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D015995:Prevalence; D040841:Resource Allocation; D013997:Time Factors