↓ Skip to main content

Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
523 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
Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clementine Calba, Flavie L Goutard, Linda Hoinville, Pascal Hendrikx, Ann Lindberg, Claude Saegerman, Marisa Peyre

Abstract

Regular and relevant evaluations of surveillance systems are essential to improve their performance and cost-effectiveness. With this in mind several organizations have developed evaluation approaches to facilitate the design and implementation of these evaluations. In order to identify and to compare the advantages and limitations of these approaches, we implemented a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). After applying exclusion criteria and identifying other additional documents via citations, 15 documents were retained. These were analysed to assess the field (public or animal health) and the type of surveillance systems targeted; the development process; the objectives; the evaluation process and its outputs; and the attributes covered. Most of the approaches identified were general and provided broad recommendations for evaluation. Several common steps in the evaluation process were identified: (i) defining the surveillance system under evaluation, (ii) designing the evaluation process, (iii) implementing the evaluation, and (iv) drawing conclusions and recommendations. A lack of information regarding the identification and selection of methods and tools to assess the evaluation attributes was highlighted; as well as a lack of consideration of economic attributes and sociological aspects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 523 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 517 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 108 21%
Researcher 68 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 10%
Student > Bachelor 33 6%
Student > Postgraduate 29 6%
Other 88 17%
Unknown 147 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 35 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 6%
Social Sciences 24 5%
Other 79 15%
Unknown 169 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,444,505
of 25,299,129 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,885
of 16,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,068
of 270,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#43
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,299,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 270,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.