The use of syndromic surveillance for decision-making during the H1N1 pandemic: A qualitative study

BMC Public Health

Ian Johnson³  Richard F Davies⁴  Anne-Luise Winter²  Ian Gemmill⁵  Jason Garay²  Doug Sider²  Laura C Rosella³  Natasha S Crowcroft⁶  Don Willison¹  Rachel Savage²  Anna Chu² 

[1] Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada;Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Public Health, Kingston, ON, Canada;Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

关键词: Syndromic surveillance;    Surveillance;    Public health;    Pandemic influenza;    Decision making;   

Others  :  1162905
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-929

 received in 2012-05-10, accepted in 2012-10-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although an increasing number of studies are documenting uses of syndromic surveillance by front line public health, few detail the value added from linking syndromic data to public health decision-making. This study seeks to understand how syndromic data informed specific public health actions during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with participants from Ontario’s public health departments, the provincial ministry of health and federal public health agency to gather information about syndromic surveillance systems used and the role of syndromic data in informing specific public health actions taken during the pandemic. Responses were compared with how the same decisions were made by non-syndromic surveillance users.

Results

Findings from 56 interviews (82% response) show that syndromic data were most used for monitoring virus activity, measuring impact on the health care system and informing the opening of influenza assessment centres in several jurisdictions, and supporting communications and messaging, rather than its intended purpose of early outbreak detection. Syndromic data had limited impact on decisions that involved the operation of immunization clinics, school closures, sending information letters home with school children or providing recommendations to health care providers. Both syndromic surveillance users and non-users reported that guidance from the provincial ministry of health, communications with stakeholders and vaccine availability were driving factors in these public health decisions.

Conclusions

Syndromic surveillance had limited use in decision-making during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Ontario. This study provides insights into the reasons why this occurred. Despite this, syndromic data were valued for providing situational awareness and confidence to support public communications and recommendations. Developing an understanding of how syndromic data are utilized during public health events provides valuable evidence to support future investments in public health surveillance.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Chu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gault G, Larrieu S, Durand C, Josseran L, Jouves B, Filleul L: Performance of a syndromic system for influenza based on the activity of general practitioners, France. J Public Health 2009, 31:286-292.
• [2]Griffin B, Jain A, Davies-Cole J, Glymph C, Lum G, Washington S, et al.: Early detection of influenza outbreaks using the DC department of health's syndromic surveillance system. BMC Publ Health 2009, 9:483. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Cooper DL, Verlander NQ, Elliot AJ, Joseph CA, Smith GE: Can syndromic thresholds provide early warning of national influenza outbreaks? J Public Health 2007, 31:17-25.
• [4]van den Wijngaard CC, van Pelt W, Nagelkerke NJ, Kretzschmar M, Koopmans MP: Evaluation of syndromic surveillance in the Netherlands: its added value and recommendations for implementation. Euro Surveill 2011, 16:19806.
• [5]Buehler JW, Hopkins RS, Overhage JM, Sosin DM, Tong V, CDC Working G: Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2004, 53:1-11.
• [6]Buckeridge DL: Outbreak detection through automated surveillance: a review of the determinants of detection. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40:370-379.
• [7]Gunn J: Bridging the gap between public health needs and research and development. In: International Society for Disease Surveillance; 2008.
• [8]Uscher-Pines L, Farrell CL, Cattani J, Hsieh YH, Moskal MD, Babin SM, et al.: A survey of usage protocols of syndromic surveillance systems by state public health departments in the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract 2009, 15:432-438.
• [9]Buehler JW, Whitney EA, Smith D, Prietula MJ, Stanton SH, Isakov AP: Situational uses of syndromic surveillance. Biosecur Bioterror 2009, 7:165-177.
• [10]Hope KG, Merritt TD, Durrheim DN, Massey PD, Kohlhagen JK, Todd KW, et al.: Evaluating the utility of emergency department syndromic surveillance for a regional public health service. Commun Dis Intell 2010, 34:310-318.
• [11]Lawson BM, Fitzhugh EC, Hall SP, Franklin C, Hutwagner LC, Seeman GM, et al.: Multifaceted syndromic surveillance in a public health department using the early aberration reporting system. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2005, 11:274-281.
• [12]Smith D, Elliot AJ, Mallaghan C, Modha D, Hippisley-Cox J, Large S, et al.: Value of syndromic surveillance in monitoring a focal waterborne outbreak due to an unusual Cryptosporidium genotype in Northamptonshire, United Kingdom, June - July 2008. Euro Surveill 2010, 13:19643.
• [13]Terry W, Ostrowsky B, Huang A: Should we be worried? Investigation of signals generated by an electronic syndromic surveillance system–Westchester County, New York. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2004, 53(Suppl):190-195.
• [14]Uscher-Pines L, Farrell CL, Babin SM, Cattani J, Gaydos CA, Hsieh YH, et al.: Framework for the development of response protocols for public health syndromic surveillance systems: case studies of 8 US states. Disaster Medicine & Public Health Preparedness 2009, 3:S29-S36.
• [15]Savage R, Chu A, Rosella LC, Crowcroft NS, Varia M, Policarpio ME, et al.: Perceived usefulness of syndromic surveillance in Ontario during the H1N1 pandemic. J Public Health 2012, 34:195-202.
• [16]Thorne S: Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing 2000, 3:68-70.
• [17]Doroshenko A, Cooper D, Smith G, Gerard E, Chinemana F, Verlander N, et al.: Evaluation of syndromic surveillance based on National Health Service Direct derived data - England and Wales. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2005, 54(Suppl):117-122.
• [18]Smith GE, Cooper DL, Loveridge P, Chinemana F, Gerard E, Verlander N: A national syndromic surveillance system for England and Wales using calls to a telephone helpline. Euro Surveill 2006, 11:220-224.
• [19]Buehler JW, Sonricker A, Paladini M, Soper P, Mostashari F: Syndromic surveillance practice in the United States: findings from a survey of state, territorial, and selected local health departments. Advances in Disease Surveillance 2008, 6:1-20.