Cohort effects in dynamic models and their impact on vaccination programmes: an example from Hepatitis A

BMC Infectious Diseases

Table 1 Observed seroprevalence versus fitted seroprevalence for the the case of constant domestic (β _ij= $\bar{β}$ _ij) and travel (τ _i= $\bar{τ}$ _i) transmission rates, and for the case of time-varying domestic (β _ij= β _ij(t)) and travel (τ _i= τ _i(t)) transmission rates.

	Seroprevalence
Age class, year, survey	Observed	Fitted, without cohort effect	Fitted, with cohort effect
0–4, 1981, Ref. 58	0.0024	0.014	0.009
5–9, 1981, Ref. 58	0.0024	0.047	0.030
10–19, 1988, Ref. 59	0.0063	0.068	0.046
10–19, 1995, Ref. 27	0.0299	0.068	0.048
10–19, 1981, Ref. 57	0.0632	0.068	0.049
20–29, 1988, Ref. 59	0.103	0.082	0.064
20–29, 1980, Ref. 57	0.114	0.082	0.129
30–39, 1988, Ref. 59	0.287	0.097	0.171
40–59, 1980, Ref. 57	0.599	0.115	0.618
40–59, 1988, Ref. 59	0.550	0.115	0.491
60+, 1988, Ref. 59	0.820	0.137	0.745

The seroprevalence values listed under "Observed", "Without cohort effect" (fitted model, constant case) and "With cohort effect" (fitted model, time-varying case) are for the timepoints specified in the first column.

ISSN: 1471-2334