C M Lowndes1, K A Fenton. 1. Department of HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Protection Agency, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK. catherine.lowndes@hpa.org.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterise the nature, content, and performance characteristics of existing national STI surveillance systems in the European Union (EU) and Norway, to facilitate collection of comparable surveillance data. METHODS: Cross sectional survey using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: Case reporting from clinicians and/or laboratories is the mainstay of EU surveillance systems for bacterial STIs. Coverage of case reporting varies from less than 10% to over 75%, and lack of and/or heterogeneity in case definitions affect the relative specificity and sensitivity of reporting systems. Considerable variations also exist in STI care sites; the populations who use these services; and in partner notification practices, STI screening practices, and STI laboratory diagnostic tests employed, affecting the representativeness of reported data and the sensitivity of surveillance systems for detecting the true number of STI cases. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of current surveillance systems complicates direct comparison of STI incidence rates across Europe. Introduction of standardised case definitions for reporting, and increased coverage of mandatory reporting systems where necessary, are needed. Definition of standardised minimum datasets and use of sentinel and enhanced surveillance systems to supplement universal case/laboratory notification data, could improve our understanding of the distribution and determinants of STIs across Europe, and aid in the design of effective public health responses. In the context of the changing epidemiology of STIs, systems for detection and monitoring of localised outbreaks of acute bacterial STIs (syphilis and antimicrobial resistant gonorrhoea), as well as prevalence monitoring systems for frequently asymptomatic STIs (chlamydial infection and viral STIs), are also necessary.
OBJECTIVES: To characterise the nature, content, and performance characteristics of existing national STI surveillance systems in the European Union (EU) and Norway, to facilitate collection of comparable surveillance data. METHODS: Cross sectional survey using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: Case reporting from clinicians and/or laboratories is the mainstay of EU surveillance systems for bacterial STIs. Coverage of case reporting varies from less than 10% to over 75%, and lack of and/or heterogeneity in case definitions affect the relative specificity and sensitivity of reporting systems. Considerable variations also exist in STI care sites; the populations who use these services; and in partner notification practices, STI screening practices, and STI laboratory diagnostic tests employed, affecting the representativeness of reported data and the sensitivity of surveillance systems for detecting the true number of STI cases. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of current surveillance systems complicates direct comparison of STI incidence rates across Europe. Introduction of standardised case definitions for reporting, and increased coverage of mandatory reporting systems where necessary, are needed. Definition of standardised minimum datasets and use of sentinel and enhanced surveillance systems to supplement universal case/laboratory notification data, could improve our understanding of the distribution and determinants of STIs across Europe, and aid in the design of effective public health responses. In the context of the changing epidemiology of STIs, systems for detection and monitoring of localised outbreaks of acute bacterial STIs (syphilis and antimicrobial resistant gonorrhoea), as well as prevalence monitoring systems for frequently asymptomatic STIs (chlamydial infection and viral STIs), are also necessary.
Authors: Kevin A Fenton; Catherine Ison; Alan P Johnson; Elizabeth Rudd; Mehnam Soltani; Iona Martin; Tom Nichols; David M Livermore Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-05-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Tzelepi; H Avgerinou; K P Kyriakis; L S Tzouvelekis; A Flemetakis; A Kalogeropoulou; E Frangouli Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Ingrid V F van den Broek; Robert A Verheij; Christel E van Dijk; Femke D H Koedijk; Marianne A B van der Sande; Jan E A M van Bergen Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: F H Ampt; C El Hayek; P A Agius; A L Bowring; N Bartnik; C VAN Gemert; C K Fairley; E P F Chow; C S Bradshaw; N Stephens; M S C Lim; M E Hellard Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 4.434
Authors: Joseph T F Lau; Chunqing Lin; King Man Ho; Man Chun Lau; Hi Yi Tsui; Jing Gu; Kuen Kong Lo Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Veronique Verhoeven; Annelies Colliers; Ann Verster; Dirk Avonts; Lieve Peremans; Paul Van Royen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Pam Sonnenberg; Soazig Clifton; Simon Beddows; Nigel Field; Kate Soldan; Clare Tanton; Catherine H Mercer; Filomeno Coelho da Silva; Sarah Alexander; Andrew J Copas; Andrew Phelps; Bob Erens; Philip Prah; Wendy Macdowall; Kaye Wellings; Catherine A Ison; Anne M Johnson Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321