Table 1.
Sources of data used for parameterisation of microsimulation model; reference numbers refer to main text
Parameter | Range or type of values | Source |
---|---|---|
a. Consumption of barbecued food | ||
Barbecue occurrence | 0 to 100 | Derived from time-series analyses |
Frequency of barbecues per day and across year | Probability on given day of week 0–1 and overall frequency | Idealo Survey 2017 [19] |
Contamination of chicken meat | Probability 0–1 | Food Standards Agency 2014 [23] |
Undercooking of barbecue food | Probability 0–1 | Food Standards Agency 2014 [20] |
Population that consumes chicken | Proportion 0–1 | Poultry Site 2018 [21] |
b. Infection from chicken preparation and cooking at home | ||
Purchased chicken is contaminated | Probability 0–1 | Food Standards Agency 2015 [22] |
Chicken sold that is skin | Proportion 0–1 | Food Standards Agency 2017 [23] |
Frequency distribution of Campylobacter on chicken skin | Observed frequency distribution | Nauta, Jacobs-Reitsma [24] |
c. Presence of Campylobacter in the countryside | ||
Herbage biomass sufficient for 10 days grazing by cows at 2.4 per ha | Gompertz modified biomass growth model | Barker et al. [25] |
d. Visits to the countryside | ||
GEE based on temperature, rainfall, day of week, age, socio-economic class | Probability 0–1 | MENE data [18] plus temperature, rainfall and day of week |
e. Exposure to Campylobacter in the countryside | ||
Pathogen strain-type frequency distribution | Observed frequency distribution | Jones, Millman et al. [27] |
Campylobacter counts in sheep, cattle and wild bird faeces | Observed counts | Stanley, Wallace et al. [28] |
Transmission from footware to hands | Probability 0–1 | Nauta, Jacobs-Reitsma [24] |
f. Immune response after exposure to Campylobacter | ||
Human dose–response experiments | Dose–response curves | Black Levine et al. [13] |
Reduction in CFU after barbecue cooking | 2.5× reduction | Food Standards Agency 2015 [22] |