Multi-objective Risk-based Resource Allocation for Urban Pandemic Preparedness: The COVID-19 Case in Bogotá, Colombia

  1. Jeisson Prieto
  2. Jonatan Gomez

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Determining how best to allocate resources to be used during a pandemic is a strategic decision that directly affects the success of pandemic response operations. However, government agencies have finite resources, so they can’t monitor everything all of the time: they have to decide how best to allocate their scarce resources (i.e., budget for antivirals and preventive vaccinations, Intensive Care Unit (ICU), ventilators, non-intensive Care Unit (non-ICU), doctors) across a broad range of risk exposures (i.e., geographic spread, routes of transmission, overall poverty, medical preconditions). This paper establishes a comprehensive risk-based emergency management framework that could be used by decision-makers to determine how best to manage medical resources, as well as suggest patient allocation among hospitals and alternative healthcare facilities. A set of risk indexes are proposed by modeling the randomness and uncertainty of allocating resources in a pandemic. The city understudy is modeled as a Euclidean complex network, where depending on the neighborhood influence of allocating a resource in a demand point (i.e., informing citizens, limit social contact, allocate a new hospital) different network configurations are proposed. Finally, a multi-objective risk-based resource allocation (MoRRA) framework is proposed to optimize the allocation of resources in pandemics. The applicability of the framework is shown by the identification of high-risk areas where to prioritize the resource allocation during the current COVID-19 pandemic in Bogotá, Colombia.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252407: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252407v1 on medRxiv