A new tool for epidemiology: The usefulness of dynamic-agent models in understanding place effects on health

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 168, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-8

  Auchincloss, Amy H ^a   Diez Roux, Ana V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer simulation; Environment and public health; Epidemiologic methods; Health behavior; Models, theoretical; Residence characteristics; Systems theory

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH IMPACT; PUBLIC HEALTH; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DYNAMICS; EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION; GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; EXERCISE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 45849087227     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn118     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualize, operationalize and measure them? Soc Sci Med 2002;55:125-39.
2. Oakes JM. The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1929-52.
3. Subramanian SV. The relevance of multilevel statistical methods for identifying causal neighborhood effects. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1961-7.
4. Diez Roux AV. Integrating social and biologic factors in health research: a systems view. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:569-74.
5. Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:97-117.
6. Diez Roux AV. Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:171-92.
7. Bingenheimer JB, Raudenbush SW. Statistical and substantive inferences in public health: issues in the application of multilevel models. Annu Rev Public Health 2004;25:53-77.
8. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology 2000;11:561-70.
9. Dinno A. Loop analysis of causal feedback in epidemiology: an illustration relating to urban neighborhoods and resident depressive experiences. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2043-57.
10. Winship C, Morgan SL. The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annu Rev Sociol 1999;25:659-706.
11. Brown DG, Robinson DT. Effects of heterogeneity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban sprawl. (Electronic article). Ecol Soc 2006;11:46. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art46/).
12. Torrens PM. Simulating sprawl. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2006;96:248-75.
13. Epstein JM, Axtell R. Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996.
14. Grimm V, Railsback SF. Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
15. Miller JH, Page SE. Complex adaptive systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
16. Page SE. Agent-based models. In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE, eds. The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. (http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_A000218&goto= agentbasedmodels&result_number=16).
17. Bonabeau E. Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:7280-7.
18. Holland JH. Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996.
19. Brown DG. Agent-based models. In: Geist H, ed. The earth's changing land: an encyclopedia of land-use and land-cover change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006:7-13.
20. Evenson KR, Sarmiento OL, Macon ML, et al. Environmental, policy, and cultural factors related to physical activity among Latina immigrants. Women Health 2002;36:43-57.
21. Hu G, Sarti C, Jousilahti P, et al. Leisure time, occupational, and commuting physical activity and the risk of stroke. Stroke 2005;36:1994-9.
22. Macera CA, Ham SA, Yore MM, et al. Prevalence of physical activity in the United States: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2001. (Electronic article). Prev Chronic Dis 2005;2:A17. (http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/apr/ 04_0114.htm).
23. Azevedo MR, Araujo CL, Reichert FF, et al. Gender differences in leisure-time physical activity. Int J Public Health 2007;52:8-15.
24. Jilcott SB, Evenson KR, Laraia BA, et al. Association between physical activity and proximity to physical activity resources among low-income, midlife women. (Electronic article). Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4:A04. (http://www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1832127&blobtype=pdf).
25. Reichert FF, Barros AJ, Domingues MR, et al. The role of perceived personal barriers to engagement in leisure-time physical activity. Am J Public Health 2007;97:515-19.
26. Bureau of Labor Statistics. American Time Use Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Labor, 2006. (http://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm).
27. Ghosh A, Craig CS. An approach to determining optimal locations for new services. J Mark Res 1986;23:354-62.
28. Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, et al. Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Rep 1990;105:179-85.
29. Hoehner CM, Brennan Ramirez LK, Elliott MB, et al. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:105-16.
30. McCormack GR, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M, et al. Correlates of distances traveled to use recreational facilities for physical activity behaviors. (Electronic article). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006;3:18. (http://www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1557534&blobtype=pdf).
31. Diez Roux AV, Evenson KR, McGinn AP, et al. Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. Am J Public Health 2007;97:493-9.
32. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 1998;393:440-2.
33. Emmons KM, Barbeau EM, Gutheil C, et al. Social influences, social context, and health behaviors among working-class, multi-ethnic adults. Health Educ Behav 2007;34:315-34.
34. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, et al. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2001;91:1995-2003.
35. Minar N, Burkhart R, Langton C, et al. The Swarm Simulation System: a toolkit for building multi-agent simulations. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute, 1996. (Working paper 96-06-042) (http://www.swarm.org/wiki/Image:MinarEtAl96. pdf).
36. Luke S, Cioffi-Revilla C, Panait L, et al. MASON: a new multi-agent simulation toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2004 SwarmFest Workshop. Fairfax, VA: Department of Computer Science and Center for Social Complexity, George Mason University, 2004. (http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~eclab/projects/mason/publications/ SwarmFest04.pdf).
37. Tatara E, North M, Howe T, et al. An introduction to RePast simphony modeling using a simple predator-prey example. In: The Agent 2006 Conference on Social Agents: Results and Prospects. Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago, 2006. (http://repast.sourceforge.net/papers/ Agent_2006_Repast_Tutorial.pdf).
38. Wilensky U. NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-based Modeling, Northwestern University, 1999. (http://ccl. northwestern.edu/netlogo/).
39. Parker DC, Hessl A, Davis SC. Complexity, spatial modeling, and the human dimension: fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum special issue, "Biocomplexity in coupled human-natural systems" (in press).
40. Macy MW, van de Rijt A. Ethnic preferences and residential segregation: theoretical explorations beyond Detroit. J Math Sociol 2006;30:275-88.
41. Di Paolo E, Nobe J, Bullock S. Simulation models as opaque thought experiments. Presented at Artificial Life VII: The Seventh International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems, Reed College, Portland, Oregon, August 1-6, 2000.
42. Maldonado G, Greenland S. Estimating causal effects. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:422-9.
43. Jilcott SB, Laraia BA, Evenson KR, et al. A guide for developing intervention tools addressing environmental factors to improve diet and physical activity. Health Promot Pract 2007;8:192-204.
44. Bankes S. Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper Res 1993;41:435-49.
45. Bankes SC. Tools and techniques for developing policies for complex and uncertain systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:7263-6.
46. Epstein JM, Cummings DAT, Chakravarty S, et al. Toward a containment strategy for smallpox bioterror: an individual-based computational approach. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004.
47. Eubank S, Guclu H, Anil Kumar VS, et al. Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 2004;429:180-4.
48. Gorman DM, Mezic J, Mezic I, et al. Agent-based modeling of drinking behavior: a preliminary model and potential applications to theory and practice. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2055-60.
49. Macy MW, Flache A. Learning dynamics in social dilemmas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:7229-36.
50. Brown DG, Page S, Riolo R, et al. Agent based and analytical modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of greenbelts. Environ Model Softw 2004;19:1097-109.
51. Fowler CS. Taking geographical economics out of equilibrium: implications for theory and policy. J Econ Geogr 2007;7:265-84.
52. Schelling TC. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York, NY: WW Norton & Co, Inc, 1978:147-65.
53. Barrett CL, Eubank SG, Smith JP. If smallpox strikes Portland. . . . Sci Am 2005;292:42-9.
54. Macy MW, Willer R. From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annu Rev Sociol 2002;28:143-66.
55. Axelrod RM. Complexity of cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
56. Manski CF. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 1993;60:531-42.
57. Committee on Frontiers at the Interface of Computing and Biology. Computational modeling and simulation as enablers for biological discovery. In: Wooley JC, Lin HS, eds. Catalyzing inquiry at the interface of computing and biology. Washington, DC: Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies, 2005.
58. Axelrod R. Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In: Conte R, Hegselmann R, Terna P, eds. Simulating social phenomena. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1997:21-40.
59. Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstien JM, et al. Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1996;1:123-41.
60. Axtell R. Why agents? On the varied motivations for agent computing in the social sciences. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2000. (Center on Social and Economic Dynamics (CSED) working paper 17) (http://www.brookings.edu/ reports/2000/11technology_axtell.aspx).
61. Rykiel EJ. Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Modell 1996;90:229-44.
62. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, et al. A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Modell 2006;198:115-26.
63. Koopman JS, Jacquez JA, Welch GW, et al. The role of early HIV infection in the spread of HIV through populations. JAcquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997;14:249-58.
64. Homer JB, Hirsch GB. System dynamics modeling for public health: background and opportunities. Am J Public Health 2006;96:452-8.
65. Sterman JD. Learning from evidence in a complex world. Am J Public Health 2006;96:505-14.
66. Epstein JM, Goedecke DM, Yu F, et al. Controlling pandemic flu: the value of international air travel restrictions. (Electronic article). PLoS ONE 2007;2:e401.
67. Koopman J. Modeling infection transmission. Annu Rev Public Health 2004;25:303-26.
68. Wilson WG. Resolving discrepancies between deterministic population models and individual-based simulations. Am Nat 1998;151:116-34.
69. Koopman J. Models of infectious disease agent study. (Abstract). Am J Epidemiol 2006;163(suppl):S172.
70. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, et al. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2003;93:314-37.
71. Brown DG, Riolo R, Robinson DT, et al. Spatial process and data models: toward integration of agent-based models and GIS. J Geogr Syst 2005;7:25-47.
72. Fahse L, Wissel C, Grimm V. Reconciling classical and individual-based approaches in theoretical population ecology: a protocol for extracting population parameters from individual-based models. Am Nat 1998;152:838-52.