Eric Miller1. 1. Epidemic Intelligence Service, Texas Department of State Health Services, USA. bwe6@cdc.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluations of surveillance systems are necessary to determine if the goals of the system are being met, how efficiently the surveillance is being implemented, and if resources are being used appropriately. An evaluation of the Texas Birth Defects Registry was conducted to assess the overall quality of data collection and to examine variations across regions of the state. METHODS: The registry was evaluated by using published guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems; the evaluation included staff interviews, process observation, and secondary data analysis. RESULTS: The registry monitors >370,000 births/year through active surveillance, with considerable disparities in workload across regions of the state. Because of the geographic size and substantial population of Texas, data collection is complex. However, the estimated sensitivity of the system appears sufficient, and rates for selected defects are highly comparable with other U.S. active birth-defect surveillance systems. Registry staff continually monitor the quality of data collection and provide additional training. Amid unstable funding, the registry staff have demonstrated optimal foresight and flexibility to adapt and continue quality data collection. Timeliness needs to be improved and more consistent quality assurance is needed across regions of the state. Retaining staff and increasing visibility are essential to providing more stability. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance for birth defects is labor-intensive but provides invaluable data for its stakeholders. The Texas Birth Defects Registry has proven to be a quality surveillance system and a beneficial resource for Texas.
BACKGROUND: Evaluations of surveillance systems are necessary to determine if the goals of the system are being met, how efficiently the surveillance is being implemented, and if resources are being used appropriately. An evaluation of the Texas Birth Defects Registry was conducted to assess the overall quality of data collection and to examine variations across regions of the state. METHODS: The registry was evaluated by using published guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems; the evaluation included staff interviews, process observation, and secondary data analysis. RESULTS: The registry monitors >370,000 births/year through active surveillance, with considerable disparities in workload across regions of the state. Because of the geographic size and substantial population of Texas, data collection is complex. However, the estimated sensitivity of the system appears sufficient, and rates for selected defects are highly comparable with other U.S. active birth-defect surveillance systems. Registry staff continually monitor the quality of data collection and provide additional training. Amid unstable funding, the registry staff have demonstrated optimal foresight and flexibility to adapt and continue quality data collection. Timeliness needs to be improved and more consistent quality assurance is needed across regions of the state. Retaining staff and increasing visibility are essential to providing more stability. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance for birth defects is labor-intensive but provides invaluable data for its stakeholders. The Texas Birth Defects Registry has proven to be a quality surveillance system and a beneficial resource for Texas.
Authors: Renata H Benjamin; Adriana Lopez; Laura E Mitchell; KuoJen Tsao; Anthony Johnson; Peter H Langlois; Michael D Swartz; A J Agopian Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Adriana Lopez; Renata H Benjamin; Janhavi R Raut; Anushuya Ramakrishnan; Laura E Mitchell; Kuojen Tsao; Anthony Johnson; Peter H Langlois; Michael D Swartz; A J Agopian Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Renata H Benjamin; Xiao Yu; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Han Chen; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Michael D Swartz; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: A J Agopian; Jihye Kim; Peter H Langlois; Laura Lee; Lawrence W Whitehead; Elaine Symanski; Michele L Herdt; George L Delclos Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Renata H Benjamin; Jason L Salemi; Mark A Canfield; Wendy N Nembhard; Cecilia Ganduglia Cazaban; KuoJen Tsao; Anthony Johnson; A J Agopian Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.661
Authors: Diego Diaz; Renata H Benjamin; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Han Chen; Angela E Scheuerle; Christian P Schaaf; Daryl A Scott; Hope Northrup; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Michael D Swartz; Katherine L Ludorf; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.578
Authors: Jihye Kim; Michael D Swartz; Peter H Langlois; Paul A Romitti; Peter Weyer; Laura E Mitchell; Thomas J Luben; Anushuya Ramakrishnan; Sadia Malik; Philip J Lupo; Marcia L Feldkamp; Robert E Meyer; Jennifer J Winston; Jennita Reefhuis; Sarah J Blossom; Erin Bell; A J Agopian Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Melissa A Richard; Jenil Patel; Renata H Benjamin; Emine Bircan; Stephen J Canon; Lisa K Marengo; Mark A Canfield; A J Agopian; Philip J Lupo; Wendy N Nembhard Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian; Renata H Benjamin; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Han Chen; Michael D Swartz Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.953