-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
Param Revamp - Contraception #1693
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Ready for @marghe-molaro and @mnjowe review |
mnjowe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Mariana @mmsuarezcosta for the great work. This is looking great!
My comments are as follows:
For resource files Initiation_ByAge.csv and Discontinuation_ByAge.csv
- Please make sure you are assigning correct
prio_minfor the negative values
For the resourcefile ResourceFile_ContraceptionParams.csv;
-
Are the values for age_modification_factors parameter probabilities or rates?
-
We are running the simulation from 2010 - 2099 so I don't know if the below is the correct assignment of prior min and prior max.
parameter_name value prior_min prior_max
min_simulation_year 2010, 2000 2020
max_simulation_year. 2101, 2050 2150
|
|
||
| _years = np.arange(2010, 2101) | ||
| _ages = np.arange(15, 50) | ||
| _years = np.arange(self.parameters['min_simulation_year'], self.parameters['max_simulation_year']) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the reason why I have left a comment on why we should reconsider the values for both prior_min and prior_max on the years
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My understanding is that the vague prior is helpful in case we want to change from running it from its current values, what other ranges can we consider
Thanks for your review @mnjowe !
|
|
Hi @mmsuarezcosta and @mnjowe,
Other than this, I am happy for @EvaJanouskova as module leader to review. Eva, it would be particularly helpful if you confirm what the files used for analysis are, as we would like to move these to a different location. Many thanks in advance! |
@marghe-molaro Makes sense, I have updated the parameter CSV. Thanks! |
Parameters that remain hardcoded
Files that I changed:
- Discontinuation_ByAge
- Initiation_byage
- Pregnancy_NotUsing_HIVeffect
- Pregnancy_NotUsing_In_2010
- Simplified_labour_parameters
- ResourceFile_ContraceptionAnalysisParams.csv
- ResourceFile_ContraceptionParams.csv
Files that require refactoring in order to properly label:
- Discontinuation_ByMethod
- Failure_ByMethod
- Initiation_AfterBirth
- Initiation_ByMethod
- Interventions_Pop
- Interventions_PPFP
- Method_Use_In_2010
- Prob_Switch_From
- Prob_Switch_From_And_To
Parameters requiring revision
Pregnancy_NotUsing_In_2010,Interventions_Pop,Interventions_PPFP-
Pregnancy_NotUsing_HIVeffect(relative rate),Failure_ByMethod,rr_fail_under25(not sure if this one takes into account the adherence rates of individuals in specific countries or if it is purely based on the efficacy of the contracpetion)-
min_age_contraceptionandmax_age_contraception: These is based off of the Guttmacher paper which is 'universal', so maybe these ranges should be defined as universal?time_age_trend_in_initiationandtime_age_trend_in_stoppingwere created for calibration purposes and thus are labeled as suchRecommendations: