OBJECTIVE: To broadly describe current syndromic surveillance systems in use throughout the United States and to provide basic descriptive information on responses to syndromic system signals. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey (telephone and e-mail) of state epidemiologists in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. RESULTS: Forty-one states participated in the survey for a response rate of 80 percent. Thirty-three states (80%) had at least one syndromic surveillance system in addition to BioSense operating within the state. Every state with an urban area at highest risk of a terrorist attack reported monitoring syndromic surveillance data, and a state's overall preparedness level was not related to the presence (or lack) of operational syndromic surveillance systems. The most common syndromic surveillance systems included BioSense (n = 20, 61%) and RODS (n = 13, 39%). Seventy-six percent of states with syndromic surveillance initiated investigations at the state level, 64 percent at the county level, and 45 percent at both the state and county levels. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of states reported using syndromic surveillance systems, with greatest penetration in those at highest risk for a terrorist attack. Most states used multiple systems and had varied methods (central and local) of responding to alerts, indicating the need for detailed response protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To broadly describe current syndromic surveillance systems in use throughout the United States and to provide basic descriptive information on responses to syndromic system signals. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey (telephone and e-mail) of state epidemiologists in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. RESULTS: Forty-one states participated in the survey for a response rate of 80 percent. Thirty-three states (80%) had at least one syndromic surveillance system in addition to BioSense operating within the state. Every state with an urban area at highest risk of a terrorist attack reported monitoring syndromic surveillance data, and a state's overall preparedness level was not related to the presence (or lack) of operational syndromic surveillance systems. The most common syndromic surveillance systems included BioSense (n = 20, 61%) and RODS (n = 13, 39%). Seventy-six percent of states with syndromic surveillance initiated investigations at the state level, 64 percent at the county level, and 45 percent at both the state and county levels. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of states reported using syndromic surveillance systems, with greatest penetration in those at highest risk for a terrorist attack. Most states used multiple systems and had varied methods (central and local) of responding to alerts, indicating the need for detailed response protocols.
Authors: Erika Samoff; Anna Waller; Aaron Fleischauer; Amy Ising; Meredith K Davis; Mike Park; Stephanie W Haas; Lauren DiBiase; Pia D M MacDonald Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Anna Chu; Rachel Savage; Michael Whelan; Laura C Rosella; Natasha S Crowcroft; Don Willison; Anne-Luise Winter; Richard Davies; Ian Gemmill; Pia K Mucchal; Ian Johnson Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2013-05-14
Authors: Zachary Faigen; Lana Deyneka; Amy Ising; Daniel Neill; Mike Conway; Geoffrey Fairchild; Julia Gunn; David Swenson; Ian Painter; Lauren Johnson; Chris Kiley; Laura Streichert; Howard Burkom Journal: Online J Public Health Inform Date: 2015-12-30
Authors: Laura A Rivera; Ye Li; Rachel D Savage; Natasha S Crowcroft; Shelly Bolotin; Laura C Rosella; Wendy Lou; Jessica Hopkins; Ian Gemmill; Ian Johnson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rachel Savage; Anna Chu; Laura C Rosella; Natasha S Crowcroft; Monali Varia; Michelle E Policarpio; Norman G Vinson; Anne-Luise Winter; Karen Hay; Richard F Davies; Ian Gemmill; Don Willison; Ian Johnson Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Anna Chu; Rachel Savage; Don Willison; Natasha S Crowcroft; Laura C Rosella; Doug Sider; Jason Garay; Ian Gemmill; Anne-Luise Winter; Richard F Davies; Ian Johnson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 3.295