↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the ability of standardized supports to improve public health response to syndromic surveillance for respiratory diseases in Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the ability of standardized supports to improve public health response to syndromic surveillance for respiratory diseases in Canada
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4073-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura A. Rivera, Ye Li, Rachel D. Savage, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Shelly Bolotin, Laura C. Rosella, Wendy Lou, Jessica Hopkins, Ian Gemmill, Ian Johnson

Abstract

Despite widespread implementation of syndromic surveillance systems within public health agencies, previous studies of the implementation and use of these systems have indicated that the functions and responses taken in response to syndromic surveillance data vary widely according to local context and preferences. The objective of the Syndromic Surveillance Evaluation Study was to develop and implement standardized supports in local public health agencies in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate the ability of these supports to affect actions taken as part of public health communicable disease control programs. Local public health agencies (LPHA) in Ontario, which used syndromic surveillance based on emergency department visits for respiratory disease, were recruited and randomly allocated to the study intervention or control group. The intervention group health agencies received standardized supports in terms of a standardized aberrant event detection algorithm and a response protocol dictating steps to investigate and assess the public health significance of syndromic surveillance alerts. The control group continued with their pre-existing syndromic surveillance infrastructure and processes. Outcomes were assessed using logbooks, which collected quantitative and qualitative information about alerts received, investigation steps taken, and public health responses. The study was conducted prospectively for 15 months (October 2013 to February 2015). Fifteen LPHAs participated in the study (n = 9 intervention group, n = 6 control group). A total of 1,969 syndromic surveillance alerts were received by all LPHAs. Variations in the types and amount of responses varied by LPHA, in particularly differences were noted by the size of the health unit. Smaller health units had more challenges to both detect and mount a response to any alerts. LPHAs in the control group were more likely to declare alerts to have public health significance and to initiate any action. Regression models using repeated measures showed an interaction between the year (Year 1 versus Year 2) and the intervention as well as an interaction between year and sustained nature of the alert. Both of these were linked to the control health units reporting more "watchful waiting". This study raises questions about the effectiveness of using standardized protocols to improve the performance of syndromic surveillance in a decentralized public health system. Despite efforts to create standardized protocols and engage public health agencies in the process, no significant differences in the effective use of syndromic alerts were observed beyond year 1. It also raises questions about the minimum capacity of the agency and minimum population size that are required for an effective response.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,628,961
of 21,343,339 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,883
of 13,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,507
of 444,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them