Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Infectious Diseases

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

Erratum To: Accounting for Behavioral Responses during a Flu Epidemic Using Home Television Viewing

  • Michael Springborn1Email author,
  • Gerardo Chowell2, 3, 4,
  • Matthew MacLachlan5 and
  • Eli P. Fenichel6
BMC Infectious DiseasesBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:474

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1795-5

Received: 22 August 2016

Accepted: 22 August 2016

Published: 5 September 2016

The original article was published in BMC Infectious Diseases 2015 15:21

Erratum

After the publication of this work [1], we became aware of errors in the reported results in Table 1. A corrected version of this table appears below. The main error involved reporting results for the low SEL class in the high SEL class row, and vice versa. Other small errors in reported p-values in the final column of the table have also been corrected.
Table 1

Summary statistics for daily percentage deviation from the long-run mean ATV t ) for various demographic groups

  

statistics for Δ t within the intervention period (τ)

group

range

mean

mean = 0 (p-value)

equal means within class (p - value)

aggregate

[-1.4 %, 22.6 %]

13.6 %

<0.001

.

age class

children

[-4.7 %, 46.2 %]

23.7 %

<0.001

<0.001

adults

[-6.5 %, 21.8 %]

8.9 %

<0.001

SEL class

low

[-3.5 %, 21.0 %]

11.3 %

<0.001

low-med: 0. 06

medium

[0.4 %, 32.1 %]

15.3 %

<0.001

med-high: 0.40

high

[-0.4 %, 31.7 %]

17.5 %

<0.001

low-high: <0.01

time of day

daytime

[-3.7 %, 30.7 %]

18.4 %

<0.001

<0.001

nighttime

[-4.1 %, 17.0 %]

9.6 %

<0.001

The only implication of correcting these errors for the results discussed in the paper is to strengthen rejection of one of the null hypotheses tested. In the original text we observed that, “During the intervention period, on average the high SEL group shows a response that is over 50 % greater than that of the low SEL group.” Furthermore we remarked that, “This difference is significant at the 5 % level.” This difference is in fact significant at the 1 % level. We regret the error.

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California
(2)
School of Public Health, Georgia State University
(3)
Division of International Epidemiology and Population Studies, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health
(4)
Mathematical, Computational & Modeling Sciences Center, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University
(5)
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of California
(6)
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

References

  1. Springborn M, Chowell G, MacLachlan M, Fenichel EP. Accounting for behavioral responses during a flu epidemic using home television viewing. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15(1):21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement