↓ Skip to main content

A cost-effectiveness analysis of three components of a syndromic surveillance system for the early warning of epidemics in rural China

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
A cost-effectiveness analysis of three components of a syndromic surveillance system for the early warning of epidemics in rural China
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2475-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Ding, Rainer Sauerborn, Biao Xu, Nie Shaofa, Weirong Yan, Vinod K. Diwan, Hengjin Dong

Abstract

Syndromic surveillance systems (SSSs) collect non-specific syndromes in early stages of disease outbreaks. This makes an SSS a promising tool for the early detection of epidemics. An Integrated Surveillance System in rural China (ISSC project), which added an SSS to the existing Chinese surveillance system for the early warning of epidemics, was implemented from April 2012 to March 2014 in Jiangxi and Hubei Provinces. This study aims to measure the costs and effectiveness of the three components of the SSS in the ISSC project. The central measures of the cost-effectiveness analysis of the three components of the syndromic surveillance system were: 1) the costs per reported event, respectively, at the health facilities, the primary schools and the pharmacies; and 2) the operating costs per surveillance unit per year, respectively, at the health facilities, the primary schools and the pharmacies. Effectiveness was expressed by reporting outputs which were numbers of reported events, numbers of raw signals, and numbers of verified signals. The reported events were tracked through an internal data base. Signal verification forms and epidemiological investigation reports were collected from local country centers for disease control and prevention. We adopted project managers' perspective for the cost analysis. Total costs included set-up costs (system development and training) and operating costs (data collection, quality control and signal verification). We used self-designed questionnaires to collect cost data and received, respectively, 369 and 477 facility and staff questionnaires through a cross-sectional survey with a purposive sampling following the ISSC project. All data were entered into Epidata 3.02 and exported to Stata for descriptive analysis. The number of daily reported events per unit was the highest at pharmacies, followed by health facilities and finally primary schools. Variances existed within the three groups and also between Jiangxi and Hubei. During a 15-month surveillance period, the number of raw signals for early warning in Jiangxi province (n = 36) was nine times of that in Hubei. Health facilities and primary schools had equal numbers of raw signals (n = 19), which was 9.5 times of that from pharmacies. Five signals were confirmed as outbreaks, of which two were influenza, two were chicken pox and one was mumps. The cost per reported event was the highest at primary schools, followed by health facilities and then pharmacies. The annual operating cost per surveillance unit was the highest at pharmacies, followed by health facilities and finally primary schools. Both the cost per reported event and the annual operating cost per surveillance unit in Jiangxi in each of the three groups were higher than their counterparts in Hubei. Health facilities and primary schools are better sources of syndromic surveillance data in the early warning of outbreaks. The annual operating costs of all the three components of the syndromic surveillance system in the ISSC Project were low compared to general government expenditures on health and average individual income in rural China.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 11 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,296,405
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,904
of 14,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,708
of 281,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#229
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.