scholarly journals Key elements of infectious disease syndromic surveillance systems: A scoping review

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Hughes ◽  
Alex Elliot ◽  
Scott McEwen ◽  
Amy Greer ◽  
Ian Young ◽  
...  

IntroductionSyndromic surveillance is an alternative type of public healthsurveillance which utilises pre-diagnostic data sources to detectoutbreaks earlier than conventional (laboratory) surveillance andmonitor the progression of illnesses in populations. These systems areoften noted for their ability to detect a wider range of cases in under-reported illnesses, utilise existing data sources, and alert public healthauthorities of emerging crises. In addition, they are highly versatileand can be applied to a wide range of illnesses (communicable andnon-communicable) and environmental conditions. As a result, theirimplementation in public health practice is expanding rapidly. Thisscoping review aimed to identify all existing literature detailing thenecessary components in the defining, creating, implementing, andevaluating stages of human infectious disease syndromic surveillancesystems.MethodsA full scoping review protocol was developeda priori. Theresearch question posed for the review was “What are the essentialelements of a fully functional syndromic surveillance system forhuman infectious disease?” Five bibliographic databases (Pubmed,Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest) and eleven websites(Google, Public Health Ontario, Public Health England, Public HealthAgency of Canada, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, InternationalSociety for Disease Surveillance, Syndromic Surveillance Systems inEurope, Eurosurveillance, Kingston Frontenac, Lennox & AddingtonPublic Health (x2)) were searched for peer-reviewed, government,academic, conference, and book literature. A total of 1237 uniquecitations were identified from this search and uploaded into thescoping review softwareCovidence. The titles and abstracts werescreened for relevance to the subject material, resulting in 142documents for full-text screening. Following this step, 55 documentsremained for data extraction and inclusion in the scoping review. Twoindependent reviewers conducted each step.ResultsThe scoping review identified many essential elements in thedefining, creating, implementing, and evaluating of syndromicsurveillance systems. These included the defining of “syndromicsurveillance”, classification of syndromes, data quality andcompleteness, statistical methods, privacy and confidentialityissues, costs, operational challenges, management composition,collaboration with other public health agencies, and evaluationcriteria. Several benefits and limitations of the systems were alsoidentified, when comparing them to other public health surveillancemethods. Benefits included the timeliness of analyses and reporting,potential cost savings, complementing traditional surveillancemethods, high sensitivity, versatility, ability to perform short- andlong-term surveillance, non-specificity of the systems, ability to fillin gaps of under-reported illnesses, and the collaborations whichare fostered through its platform; limitations included the potentialresources and costs required, inability to replace traditional healthcareand surveillance methods, the false alerts which may occur, non-specificity of the systems, poor data quality and completeness, timelags in analyses, limited effectiveness at detecting smaller-scaleoutbreaks, and privacy issues with accessing data.ConclusionsOver the past decade, syndromic surveillance systems have becomean integral part of public health practice internationally. Their abilityto monitor a wide variety of illnesses and conditions, detect illnessesearlier than traditional surveillance methods, and be created usingexisting data sources make them a valuable public health tool.The results from this scoping review demonstrate the benefits andlimitations and overall role of the systems in public health practice.In addition, this study also shows that a complete set of key elementsare required in order to properly define, create, implement, andevaluate these systems to ensure their effectiveness and performance.

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Van Goethem ◽  
T Descamps ◽  
S De Keersmaecker ◽  
D Jamine ◽  
N Roosens ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Muscatello ◽  
Abrar A. Chughtai ◽  
Anita Heywood ◽  
Lauren M. Gardner ◽  
David J. Heslop ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Beverley J. Paterson ◽  
David N. Durrheim

Surveillance evaluations of surveillance systems should provide evidence to improve public health practice. In response to surveillance evaluation findings amongst Pacific Island Countries and Territories that identified a critical need to better equip local public health officials with skills to rapidly appropriately respond to suspected infectious disease outbreaks across the Pacific, the RAPID (Response and Analysis for Pacific Infectious Diseases) project was implemented to strengthen capacity in surveillance, epidemiology and outbreak response. The RAPID project is a notable example of how evidence gathered through a surveillance evaluation can be used to improve public health surveillance practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Van Goethem ◽  
Tine Descamps ◽  
Brecht Devleesschauwer ◽  
Nancy H. C. Roosens ◽  
Nele A. M. Boon ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Simon Rowland ◽  
Alison McGregor ◽  
J Edward Fitzgerald ◽  
Edward Meinert

BACKGROUND The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines mHealth as medical and public health practice supported by mobile devices. A number of mHealth devices, primarily apps designed to support contact tracing, have been utilised as part of the public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The value of mHealth devices in augmenting public health practice is however yet to be defined. OBJECTIVE The study aims to address three research questions: (1) What digital technologies are being used to track the symptoms and spread of infectious disease outbreaks and what strategies do they use to do so? (2) How effective and cost-effective are digital technologies at tracking the spread of infectious disease outbreaks and what are their strengths and limitations? (3) What are the user perspectives on the usability and effectiveness of these technologies? METHODS The PICOS template and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) will be followed for this systematic review. The review will be composed of a literature search, article selection, data extraction, quality appraisal, data analysis, and a discussion of the implications of the data for the current COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS N/A CONCLUSIONS This systematic review will summarise the available evidence for use of mHealth devices for tracking the spread of infectious disease outbreaks. These results are potentially valuable for informing public health policy during infectious disease outbreaks such as the current Covid-19 pandemic.


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. A. Webb

AbstractThis article outlines the historical development in African studies of the sub-discipline of historical epidemiology and the contemporary challenges of understanding infectious disease processes that require integrating biomedical and historical knowledge. It suggests that Africanist historians can play a significant role in collaborative and multidisciplinary research in this field by exploring the histories of disease processes and interventions, and thereby contributing to improvements in public health practice and outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract   The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many gaps and vulnerabilities in health systems and pandemic preparedness in European countries. It has also led to innovation and rapid improvements in certain elements of public health practice. One defining characteristic of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid advance of scientific knowledge, accompanied by high degrees of scientific uncertainty. Each phase (or “wave”) of the pandemic has presented unique challenges. This workshop involves public health practitioners from multiple European countries. They will reflect upon some over-arching lessons learned through their experiences in the field, while also alluding to important innovations in public health that should be safeguarded for the future. The panellists will also discuss how lessons learned can be systematically identified and acted upon, through approaches such as after-action reviews (AARs), in order to optimise the public health response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as to future ones. The panel discussion format of this workshop adds value to EUPHA 2021 participant through hearing, in a relatively informal format, the experiences from senior staff at national public health agencies from a variety of European countries and contexts. This approach keeps a coherence between speakers will also highlighting the unique challenges posed by specific national contexts. This workshop will also consider how processes such as AARs can be formalised to become routine aspects of public health practice. Particular attention will be paid to challenges and solutions that are similar across national boundaries. During the workshop, the moderator will ensure that the panelists responses are short and succinct. The final 15 minutes will be dedicated to questions from the audience. Speakers/Panelists Flavia Riccardo ISS, Rome, Italy Ute Rexroth RKI, Berlin, Germany Tanya Melillo Directorate of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, MSIDA, Malta Mario Fafangel National Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia Key messages In order to guide the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as to future pandemics, it is essential to systematically identify lessons learned as well as innovative good practices. Identifying lessons learned, however, is only a first step as it is essential to develop action plans that are supported and endorsed across a wide range of stakeholders.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Van Goethem ◽  
T Descamps ◽  
S De Keersmaecker ◽  
D Jamine ◽  
N Roosens ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document