↓ Skip to main content

Comparing national infectious disease surveillance systems: China and the Netherlands

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Comparing national infectious disease surveillance systems: China and the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4319-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willemijn L. Vlieg, Ewout B. Fanoy, Liselotte van Asten, Xiaobo Liu, Jun Yang, Eva Pilot, Paul Bijkerk, Wim van der Hoek, Thomas Krafft, Marianne A. van der Sande, Qi-Yong Liu

Abstract

Risk assessment and early warning (RAEW) are essential components of any infectious disease surveillance system. In light of the International Health Regulations (IHR)(2005), this study compares the organisation of RAEW in China and the Netherlands. The respective approaches towards surveillance of arboviral disease and unexplained pneumonia were analysed to gain a better understanding of the RAEW mode of operation. This study may be used to explore options for further strengthening of global collaboration and timely detection and surveillance of infectious disease outbreaks. A qualitative study design was used, combining data retrieved from the literature and from semi-structured interviews with Chinese (5 national-level and 6 provincial-level) and Dutch (5 national-level) experts. The results show that some differences exist such as in the use of automated electronic components of the early warning system in China ('CIDARS'), compared to a more limited automated component in the Netherlands ('barometer'). Moreover, RAEW units in the Netherlands focus exclusively on infectious diseases, while China has a broader 'all hazard' approach (including for example chemical incidents). In the Netherlands, veterinary specialists take part at the RAEW meetings, to enable a structured exchange/assessment of zoonotic signals. Despite these differences, the main conclusion is that for the two infections studied, the early warning system in China and the Netherlands are remarkably similar considering their large differences in infectious disease history, population size and geographical setting. Our main recommendations are continued emphasis on international corporation that requires insight into national infectious disease surveillance systems, the usage of a One Health approach in infectious disease surveillance, and further exploration/strengthening of a combined syndromic and laboratory surveillance system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,482,068
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,835
of 14,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,223
of 310,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#129
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 310,576 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.