Comparing Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine schedules: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine trials

BACKGROUND The optimal schedule and the need for a booster dose are unclear for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines. We systematically reviewed relative effects of Hib vaccine schedules. METHODS We searched 21 databases to May 2010 or June 2012 and selected randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared different Hib schedules (3 primary doses with no booster dose [3p+0], 3p+1 and 2p+1) or different intervals in primary schedules and between primary and booster schedules. Outcomes were clinical efficacy, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological response. Results were combined in random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty trials from 15 countries were included; 16 used vaccines conjugated to tetanus toxoid (polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid). No trials assessed clinical or carriage outcomes. Twenty trials examined immunological outcomes and found few relevant differences. Comparing polyribosylribitol phosphate conjugated to tetanus toxoid 3p+0 with 2p+0, there was no difference in seropositivity at the 1.0 μg/mL threshold by 6 months after the last primary dose (combined risk difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.06). Only small differences were seen between schedules starting at different ages, with different intervals between primary doses, or with different intervals between primary and booster doses. Individuals receiving a booster were more likely to be seropositive than those at the same age who did not. CONCLUSIONS There is no clear evidence from trials that any 2p+1, 3p+0 or 3p+1 schedule of Hib conjugate vaccine is likely to provide better protection against Hib disease than other schedules. Until more data become available, scheduling is likely to be determined by epidemiological and programmatic considerations in individual settings.

An MBLP model for scheduling assessment centers

Firms aim at assigning qualified and motivated people to jobs. Human resources managers often conduct assessment centers before making such personnel decisions. By means of an assessment center, the potential and skills of job applicants can be assessed more objectively. For the scheduling of such assessment centers, we present a formulation as a mixed-binary linear program and report on computational results for four real-life examples.

Efficient list-generation techniques for scheduling assessment centers

Human resources managers often conduct assessment centers to evaluate candidates for a job position. During an assessment center, the candidates perform a series of tasks. The tasks require one or two assessors (e.g., managers or psychologists) that observe and evaluate the candidates. If an exercise is designed as a role-play, an actor is required who plays, e.g., an unhappy customer with whom the candidate has to deal with. Besides performing the tasks, each candidate has a lunch break within a prescribed time window. Each candidate should be observed by approximately half the number of the assessors; however, an assessor may not observe a candidate if they personally know each other. The planning problem consists of determining (1) resource-feasible start times of all tasks and lunch breaks and (2) a feasible assignment of assessors to candidates, such that the assessment center duration is minimized. We present a list-scheduling heuristic that generates feasible schedules for such assessment centers. We propose several novel techniques to generate the respective task lists. Our computational results indicate that our approach is capable of devising optimal or near-optimal schedules for real-world instances within short CPU time.

A heuristic approach for scheduling assessment centers

Human resources managers often use assessment centers to evaluate candidates for a job position. During an assessment center, the candidates perform a series of exercises. The exercises require one or two assessors (e.g., managers or psychologists) that observe and evaluate the candidate. If an exercise is designed as a role-play, an actor is required as well which plays, e.g., an unhappy customer with whom the candidate has to deal with. Besides performing the exercises, the candidates have a lunch break within a prescribed time window. Each candidate should be observed by approximately half the number of the assessors. Moreover, an assessor cannot be assigned to a candidate if they personally know each other. The planning problem consists of determining (1) resource-feasible start times of all exercises and lunch breaks and (2) a feasible assignment of assessors to candidates, such that the assessment center duration is minimized. We propose a list-scheduling heuristic that generates feasible schedules for such assessment centers. We develop novel procedures for devising an appropriate scheduling list and for incorporating the problem-specific constraints. Our computational results indicate that our approach is capable of devising optimal or near-optimal solutions to real-world instances within short CPU time.