In an effort to address the lack of literature in on-campus active travel, this study aims to investigate the following primary questions:<br/>• What are the modes that students use to travel on campus?<br/>• What are the motivations that underlie the mode choice of students on campus?<br/>My first stage of research involved a series of qualitative investigations. I held one-on-one virtual interviews with students in which I asked them questions about the mode they use and why they feel that their chosen mode works best for them. These interviews served two functions. First, they provided me with insight into the various motivations underlying student mode choice. Second, they provided me with an indication of what explanatory variables should be included in a model of mode choice on campus.<br/>The first half of the research project informed a quantitative survey that was released via the Honors Digest to attract student respondents. Data was gathered on travel behavior as well as relevant explanatory variables.<br/>My analysis involved developing a logit model to predict student mode choice on campus and presenting the model estimation in conjunction with a discussion of student travel motivations based on the qualitative interviews. I use this information to make a recommendation on how campus infrastructure could be modified to better support the needs of the student population.
Methods: Using archival death certificates from 1954 to 1961, this study quantified the age-specific seasonal patterns, excess-mortality rates, and transmissibility patterns of the 1957 pandemic in Maricopa County, Arizona. By applying cyclical Serfling linear regression models to weekly mortality rates, the excess-mortality rates due to respiratory and all-causes were estimated for each age group during the pandemic period. The reproduction number was quantified from weekly data using a simple growth rate method and generation intervals of 3 and 4 days. Local newspaper articles from The Arizona Republic were analyzed from 1957-1958.
Results: Excess-mortality rates varied between waves, age groups, and causes of death, but overall remained low. From October 1959-June 1960, the most severe wave of the pandemic, the absolute excess-mortality rate based on respiratory deaths per 10,000 population was 17.85 in the elderly (≥65 years). All other age groups had extremely low excess-mortality and the typical U-shaped age-pattern was absent. However, relative risk was greatest (3.61) among children and young adolescents (5-14 years) from October 1957-March 1958, based on incidence rates of respiratory deaths. Transmissibility was greatest during the same 1957-1958 period, when the mean reproduction number was 1.08-1.11, assuming 3 or 4 day generation intervals and exponential or fixed distributions.
Conclusions: Maricopa County largely avoided pandemic influenza from 1957-1961. Understanding this historical pandemic and the absence of high excess-mortality rates and transmissibility in Maricopa County may help public health officials prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks of influenza.
Seroepidemiological studies before and after the epidemic wave of H1N1-2009 are useful for estimating population attack rates with a potential to validate early estimates of the reproduction number, R, in modeling studies.
Methodology/Principal Findings
Since the final epidemic size, the proportion of individuals in a population who become infected during an epidemic, is not the result of a binomial sampling process because infection events are not independent of each other, we propose the use of an asymptotic distribution of the final size to compute approximate 95% confidence intervals of the observed final size. This allows the comparison of the observed final sizes against predictions based on the modeling study (R = 1.15, 1.40 and 1.90), which also yields simple formulae for determining sample sizes for future seroepidemiological studies. We examine a total of eleven published seroepidemiological studies of H1N1-2009 that took place after observing the peak incidence in a number of countries. Observed seropositive proportions in six studies appear to be smaller than that predicted from R = 1.40; four of the six studies sampled serum less than one month after the reported peak incidence. The comparison of the observed final sizes against R = 1.15 and 1.90 reveals that all eleven studies appear not to be significantly deviating from the prediction with R = 1.15, but final sizes in nine studies indicate overestimation if the value R = 1.90 is used.
Conclusions
Sample sizes of published seroepidemiological studies were too small to assess the validity of model predictions except when R = 1.90 was used. We recommend the use of the proposed approach in determining the sample size of post-epidemic seroepidemiological studies, calculating the 95% confidence interval of observed final size, and conducting relevant hypothesis testing instead of the use of methods that rely on a binomial proportion.