IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0111222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Kimberly N Gajewski
  • Amy E Peterson
  • Rohit A Chitale
  • Julie A Pavlin
  • Kevin L Russell
  • Jean-Paul Chretien

Abstract

Electronic event-based biosurveillance systems (EEBS’s) that use near real-time information from the internet are an increasingly important source of epidemiologic intelligence. However, there has not been a systematic assessment of EEBS evaluations, which could identify key uncertainties about current systems and guide EEBS development to most effectively exploit web-based information for biosurveillance. To conduct this assessment, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed evaluations of EEBS’s. We included EEBS’s that use publicly available internet information sources, cover events that are relevant to human health, and have global scope. To assess the publications using a common framework, we constructed a list of 17 EEBS attributes from published guidelines for evaluating health surveillance systems. We identified 11 EEBS’s and 20 evaluations of these EEBS’s. The number of published evaluations per EEBS ranged from 1 (Gen-Db, GODsN, MiTAP) to 8 (GPHIN, HealthMap). The median number of evaluation variables assessed per EEBS was 8 (range, 3–15). Ten published evaluations contained quantitative assessments of at least one key variable. No evaluations examined usefulness by identifying specific public health decisions, actions, or outcomes resulting from EEBS outputs. Future EEBS assessments should identify and discuss critical indicators of public health utility, especially the impact of EEBS’s on public health response.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimberly N Gajewski & Amy E Peterson & Rohit A Chitale & Julie A Pavlin & Kevin L Russell & Jean-Paul Chretien, 2014. "A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-4, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111222
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111222
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111222&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0111222?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.