OBJECTIVES: We assessed the perceived utility of data collected through ArboNET, the national arboviral surveillance system, and evaluated state health department user satisfaction with system function. METHODS: We used an online assessment tool to collect information about types of arboviral surveillance conducted, user satisfaction with ArboNET's performance, and use of data collected by the system. Representatives of all 53 reporting jurisdictions were asked to complete the assessment during spring 2009. RESULTS: Representatives of 48 (91%) jurisdictions completed the assessment. Two-thirds of respondents were satisfied with ArboNET's overall performance. Most concerns were related to data transmission, particularly the lack of compatibility with the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS). Users found mosquito (85%), human disease (80%), viremic blood donor (79%), and veterinary disease (75%) surveillance data to be useful. While there was disagreement about the usefulness of avian mortality and sentinel animal surveillance, only 15% of users supported eliminating these categories. Respondents found weekly maps and tables posted on the U.S. Geological Survey (92%) and CDC (88%) websites to be the most useful reports generated from ArboNET data. Although many jurisdictions were willing to report additional clinical or laboratory data, time and resource constraints were considerations. Most respondents (71%) supported review and possible revision of the national case definition for human arboviral disease. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this assessment, CDC and partner organizations have made ArboNET NEDSS-compatible and revised national case definitions for arboviral disease. Alternative data-sharing and reporting options are also being considered. Continued evaluation of ArboNET will help ensure that it continues to be a useful tool for national arboviral disease surveillance.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the perceived utility of data collected through ArboNET, the national arboviral surveillance system, and evaluated state health department user satisfaction with system function. METHODS: We used an online assessment tool to collect information about types of arboviral surveillance conducted, user satisfaction with ArboNET's performance, and use of data collected by the system. Representatives of all 53 reporting jurisdictions were asked to complete the assessment during spring 2009. RESULTS: Representatives of 48 (91%) jurisdictions completed the assessment. Two-thirds of respondents were satisfied with ArboNET's overall performance. Most concerns were related to data transmission, particularly the lack of compatibility with the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS). Users found mosquito (85%), human disease (80%), viremic blood donor (79%), and veterinary disease (75%) surveillance data to be useful. While there was disagreement about the usefulness of avian mortality and sentinel animal surveillance, only 15% of users supported eliminating these categories. Respondents found weekly maps and tables posted on the U.S. Geological Survey (92%) and CDC (88%) websites to be the most useful reports generated from ArboNET data. Although many jurisdictions were willing to report additional clinical or laboratory data, time and resource constraints were considerations. Most respondents (71%) supported review and possible revision of the national case definition for humanarboviral disease. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this assessment, CDC and partner organizations have made ArboNET NEDSS-compatible and revised national case definitions for arboviral disease. Alternative data-sharing and reporting options are also being considered. Continued evaluation of ArboNET will help ensure that it continues to be a useful tool for national arboviral disease surveillance.
Authors: D Nash; F Mostashari; A Fine; J Miller; D O'Leary; K Murray; A Huang; A Rosenberg; A Greenberg; M Sherman; S Wong; M Layton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-06-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carolyn A Reimann; Edward B Hayes; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Richard Hoffman; Jennifer A Lehman; Nicole P Lindsey; Grant L Campbell; Marc Fischer Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Lisa N Pealer; Anthony A Marfin; Lyle R Petersen; Robert S Lanciotti; Peter L Page; Susan L Stramer; Mary Grace Stobierski; Kimberly Signs; Bruce Newman; Hema Kapoor; Jesse L Goodman; Mary E Chamberland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel M Pastula; Diep K Hoang Johnson; Jennifer L White; Alan P Dupuis; Marc Fischer; J Erin Staples Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Heidi E Brown; Luigi Sedda; Chris Sumner; Elene Stefanakos; Irene Ruberto; Matthew Roach Journal: J Med Entomol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.278