scholarly journals A scoping review on data integration in the field of infectious diseases, 2009-2018

2021 ◽  
pp. 151-157
Author(s):  
Seulgi Kim ◽  
Chulwoo Rhee ◽  
Su Jin Kang ◽  
Sangwoo Tak
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Data Integration ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Routine Surveillance ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Data Source

Background and Aim: Little is known about data integration in public health research and its impact. This study aimed to summarize known collaboration information, the characteristics of the datasets used, the methods of data integration, and knowledge gaps. Materials and Methods: We reviewed papers on infectious diseases from two or more datasets published during 2009- 2018, before the coronavirus disease pandemic. Two independent researchers searched the Medline and Global Health databases using predetermined criteria. Results: Of the 2375 items retrieved, 2272 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 164 were secondary reviews. Full-text reviews identified 153 relevant articles; we excluded 11 papers that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the 153 papers, 150 were single-country studies. Most papers were from North America (n=47). Viral diseases were the most commonly researched diseases (n=66), and many studies sought to define infection rates (n=62). Data integration usually employed unique national identifiers (n=37) or address-based identifiers (n=30). Two data sources were combined (n=121), and at least one data source typically included routine surveillance information. Conclusion: We found a growing usage of data integration in infectious diseases, emphasizing the advantages of data integration and linkage analysis, and reiterating its importance in public health emergency preparedness and response.

scholarly journals 18.H. Workshop: Bringing evidence during public health emergencies: addressing the challenge through HTA

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and irrefutable evidence may be lacking. The process of including evidence in public health decision-making and for evidence-informed policy, in preparation, and during public health emergencies, is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absences of shared tools and approaches for evidence-based preparedness and response planning. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability and to implement coordinated evidence-based response plans. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. As a multidisciplinary, standardized and evidence-based decision-making tool, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) represents and approach that can inform public health emergency preparedness and response planning processes; it can also provide meaningful insights on existing preparedness structures, working as bridge between scientists and decision-makers, easing knowledge transition and translation to ensure that evidence is effectively integrated into decision-making contexts. HTA can address the link between scientific evidence and decision-making in public health emergencies, and overcome the key challenges faced by public health experts when advising decision makers, including strengthening and accelerating knowledge transfer through rapid HTA, improving networking between actors and disciplines. It may allow a 360° perspective, providing a comprehensive view to decision-making in preparation and during public health emergencies. The objective of the workshop is to explore and present how HTA can be used as a shared and systematic evidence-based tool for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response, in order to enable stakeholders and decision makers taking actions based on the best available evidence through a process which is systematic and transparent. Key messages There are many barriers and no shared mechanisms to bring evidence in decision-making during public health emergencies. HTA can represent the tool to bring evidence-informed actions in public health emergency preparedness and response.

A Consensus Process on the Use of Exercises and After Action Reports to Assess and Improve Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Savoia ◽  
Jessica Preston ◽  
Paul D. Biddinger
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Evaluation Methodology ◽  
Consensus Process ◽  
Disaster Victims ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

AbstractIntroductionThe objective of disaster preparedness is to ensure that appropriate systems, procedures, and resources are in place to provide prompt, effective assistance to disaster victims, thus facilitating relief measures and rehabilitation of services. Disaster preparedness efforts include the identification of possible health scenarios based on the probability of hazards and vulnerability of the population as a basis for creating a disaster plan. Exercises that simulate emergency response, involving the health and other sectors, have been suggested as useful tools to test the plans on a regular basis and measure preparedness efforts; the absence of actual testing is likely to negate even the best of abstract plans.ProblemExercises and after action reports (AARs) are used to document preparedness activities. However, to date, limited analysis has been performed on what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess public health emergency preparedness (PHEP), and how AARs can be developed and used to support PHEP improvement efforts. The scope of this project was to achieve consensus on: (1) what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess PHEP; and (2) what makes an AAR an effective tool to guide PHEP improvement efforts.MethodsSixty-one PHEP experts were convened by the use of Nominal Group Techniques to achieve consensus on a series of characteristics that exercises should have when designed to assess PHEP and on the recommendations for developing high-quality AARs.ResultsThe panelists achieved consensus on a list of recommendations to improve the use of exercises and AARs in PHEP improvement efforts. Such recommendations ranged from the characteristics of the exercise audience to the evaluation methodology being used and the characteristics of the produced AAR such as its structure and content.ConclusionsThe characteristics of the exercise audience, scenario and scope are among the most important attributes to the effectiveness of an exercise conducted for PHEP evaluation purposes. The evaluation instruments used to gather observations need an appropriate matching between exercise objectives and the response capabilities tested during the exercise, to build the base for the production of a good AAR. Improvements in the design and creation of exercises and AARs could facilitate better reporting and measurement of preparedness outcomes.SavoiaE, PrestonJ, BiddingerPD. A consensus process on the use of exercises and after action reports to assess and improve public health emergency preparedness and response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(3):1-4.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document