Janeth George1,2, Barbara Häsler3, Irene Mremi1,2, Calvin Sindato2,4, Leonard Mboera2, Mark Rweyemamu2, James Mlangwa1. 1. Department of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3021, Morogoro, Tanzania. 2. SACIDS Foundation for One Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3297, Morogoro, Tanzania. 3. Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics, and Public Health Group, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL97TA UK. 4. National Institute for Medical Research, Tabora Research Centre, Tabora, Tanzania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health surveillance is an important element of disease prevention, control, and management. During the past two decades, there have been several initiatives to integrate health surveillance systems using various mechanisms ranging from the integration of data sources to changing organizational structures and responses. The need for integration is caused by an increasing demand for joint data collection, use and preparedness for emerging infectious diseases. OBJECTIVE: To review the integration mechanisms in human and animal health surveillance systems and identify their contributions in strengthening surveillance systems attributes. METHOD: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. Peer-reviewed articles were searched from PubMed, HINARI, Web of Science, Science Direct and advanced Google search engines. The review included articles published in English from 1900 to 2018. The study selection considered all articles that used quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methods. Eligible articles were assessed independently for quality by two authors using the QualSyst Tool and relevant information including year of publication, field, continent, addressed attributes and integration mechanism were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 102 publications were identified and categorized into four pre-set integration mechanisms: interoperability (35), convergent integration (27), semantic consistency (21) and interconnectivity (19). Most integration mechanisms focused on sensitivity (44.1%), timeliness (41.2%), data quality (23.5%) and acceptability (17.6%) of the surveillance systems. Generally, the majority of the surveillance system integrations were centered on addressing infectious diseases and all hazards. The sensitivity of the integrated systems reported in these studies ranged from 63.9 to 100% (median = 79.6%, n = 16) and the rate of data quality improvement ranged from 73 to 95.4% (median = 87%, n = 4). The integrated systems were also shown improve timeliness where the recorded changes were reported to be ranging from 10 to 91% (median = 67.3%, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Interoperability and semantic consistency are the common integration mechanisms in human and animal health surveillance systems. Surveillance system integration is a relatively new concept but has already been shown to enhance surveillance performance. More studies are needed to gain information on further surveillance attributes.
BACKGROUND: Health surveillance is an important element of disease prevention, control, and management. During the past two decades, there have been several initiatives to integrate health surveillance systems using various mechanisms ranging from the integration of data sources to changing organizational structures and responses. The need for integration is caused by an increasing demand for joint data collection, use and preparedness for emerging infectious diseases. OBJECTIVE: To review the integration mechanisms in human and animal health surveillance systems and identify their contributions in strengthening surveillance systems attributes. METHOD: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. Peer-reviewed articles were searched from PubMed, HINARI, Web of Science, Science Direct and advanced Google search engines. The review included articles published in English from 1900 to 2018. The study selection considered all articles that used quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methods. Eligible articles were assessed independently for quality by two authors using the QualSyst Tool and relevant information including year of publication, field, continent, addressed attributes and integration mechanism were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 102 publications were identified and categorized into four pre-set integration mechanisms: interoperability (35), convergent integration (27), semantic consistency (21) and interconnectivity (19). Most integration mechanisms focused on sensitivity (44.1%), timeliness (41.2%), data quality (23.5%) and acceptability (17.6%) of the surveillance systems. Generally, the majority of the surveillance system integrations were centered on addressing infectious diseases and all hazards. The sensitivity of the integrated systems reported in these studies ranged from 63.9 to 100% (median = 79.6%, n = 16) and the rate of data quality improvement ranged from 73 to 95.4% (median = 87%, n = 4). The integrated systems were also shown improve timeliness where the recorded changes were reported to be ranging from 10 to 91% (median = 67.3%, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Interoperability and semantic consistency are the common integration mechanisms in human and animal health surveillance systems. Surveillance system integration is a relatively new concept but has already been shown to enhance surveillance performance. More studies are needed to gain information on further surveillance attributes.
Authors: R Bellini; M Calzolari; A Mattivi; M Tamba; P Angelini; P Bonilauri; A Albieri; R Cagarelli; M Carrieri; M Dottori; A C Finarelli; P Gaibani; M P Landini; S Natalini; N Pascarelli; G Rossini; C Velati; C Vocale; E Bedeschi Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2014-11-06
Authors: Sheri H Lewis; Rekha S Holtry; Wayne A Loschen; Richard Wojcik; Lang Hung; Joseph Lombardo Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2011 May-Jun
Authors: A Vincent; L Awada; I Brown; H Chen; F Claes; G Dauphin; R Donis; M Culhane; K Hamilton; N Lewis; E Mumford; T Nguyen; S Parchariyanon; J Pasick; G Pavade; A Pereda; M Peiris; T Saito; S Swenson; K Van Reeth; R Webby; F Wong; J Ciacci-Zanella Journal: Zoonoses Public Health Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 2.702
Authors: Milissa Markiewicz; Christine A Bevc; Jennifer Hegle; Jennifer A Horney; Megan Davies; Pia D M MacDonald Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Zana C Somda; Helen N Perry; Nancy R Messonnier; Mamadou H Djingarey; Salimata Ouedraogo Ki; Martin I Meltzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yutong Zhang; Ryan B Simpson; Lauren E Sallade; Emily Sanchez; Kyle M Monahan; Elena N Naumova Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390