4.7 Article

Connecting Mobility to Infectious Diseases: The Promise and Limits of Mobile Phone Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 S414-S420

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiw273

关键词

spatial epidemiology; Big Data; mobile phones; human mobility

资金

  1. James S. McDonnell Foundation
  2. Wellcome Trust [106866/Z/15/Z]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  4. Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study program [1U54GM088558]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human travel can shape infectious disease dynamics by introducing pathogens into susceptible populations or by changing the frequency of contacts between infected and susceptible individuals. Quantifying infectious disease-relevant travel patterns on fine spatial and temporal scales has historically been limited by data availability. The recent emergence of mobile phone calling data and associated locational information means that we can now trace fine scale movement across large numbers of individuals. However, these data necessarily reflect a biased sample of individuals across communities and are generally aggregated for both ethical and pragmatic reasons that may further obscure the nuance of individual and spatial heterogeneities. Additionally, as a general rule, the mobile phone data are not linked to demographic or social identifiers, or to information about the disease status of individual subscribers (although these may be made available in smaller-scale specific cases). Combining data on human movement from mobile phone data-derived population fluxes with data on disease incidence requires approaches that can tackle varying spatial and temporal resolutions of each data source and generate inference about dynamics on scales relevant to both pathogen biology and human ecology. Here, we review the opportunities and challenges of these novel data streams, illustrating our examples with analyses of 2 different pathogens in Kenya, and conclude by outlining core directions for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据