作为优化 "一个健康 "疫情响应的工具,及时性指标的可行性或实用性如何?

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013615
Jane Fieldhouse, Lydia Nakiire, Joshua Kayiwa, Claire D Brindis, Ashley Mitchell, Issa Makumbi, Alex Riolexus Ario, Elizabeth Fair, Jonna A K Mazet, Mohammed Lamorde
{"title":"作为优化 \"一个健康 \"疫情响应的工具,及时性指标的可行性或实用性如何?","authors":"Jane Fieldhouse, Lydia Nakiire, Joshua Kayiwa, Claire D Brindis, Ashley Mitchell, Issa Makumbi, Alex Riolexus Ario, Elizabeth Fair, Jonna A K Mazet, Mohammed Lamorde","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction As timeliness metrics gain traction to assess and optimise outbreak detection and response performance, implementation and scale-up require insight into the perspectives of stakeholders adopting these tools. This study sought to characterise the feasibility and utility of tracking One Health outbreak milestones across relevant human, animal, plant, and environmental sectors to systematically quantify timeliness metrics in Uganda, a country prone to outbreaks of WHO priority diseases. Methods A database of outbreak events occurring in Uganda between 2018 and 2022 was compiled. Outbreak reports meeting our inclusion criteria were reviewed to quantify the frequency of milestone reporting. Key informant interviews were conducted with expert stakeholders to explore the feasibility and utility of tracking metrics using a framework analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed concurrently. Results Of the 282 public health emergencies occurring between 2018 and 2022, 129 events met our inclusion criteria, and complete data were available for 82 outbreaks. For our qualitative portion, 10 informants were interviewed from 7 institutions, representing the human, animal and environmental sectors. Informants agreed most One Health milestones are feasible to track, which was supported by the frequency of milestone reporting; however, there was a demonstrated need for increased reporting of after-action reviews, as well as outbreak start and end dates. Predictive alerts signalling potential outbreaks and preventive responses to alerts are seen as challenging to routinely capture, reflecting the lack of public health action for these domains. Conclusion Despite consensus among stakeholders that timeliness metrics are a beneficial tool to assess outbreak performance, not all One Health metrics are being tracked consistently, thereby missing opportunities to optimise epidemic intelligence, preparedness and prevention. The feasibility of tracking these metrics depends on the integration of reporting channels, enhanced documentation of milestones and development of guidance for early adopters, recognising country-specific on-the-ground realities and challenges to national scaling efforts. Data are available on reasonable request. The dataset generated and analysed in the study is available from the corresponding author, JAKM, on request.","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How feasible or useful are timeliness metrics as a tool to optimise One Health outbreak responses?\",\"authors\":\"Jane Fieldhouse, Lydia Nakiire, Joshua Kayiwa, Claire D Brindis, Ashley Mitchell, Issa Makumbi, Alex Riolexus Ario, Elizabeth Fair, Jonna A K Mazet, Mohammed Lamorde\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction As timeliness metrics gain traction to assess and optimise outbreak detection and response performance, implementation and scale-up require insight into the perspectives of stakeholders adopting these tools. This study sought to characterise the feasibility and utility of tracking One Health outbreak milestones across relevant human, animal, plant, and environmental sectors to systematically quantify timeliness metrics in Uganda, a country prone to outbreaks of WHO priority diseases. Methods A database of outbreak events occurring in Uganda between 2018 and 2022 was compiled. Outbreak reports meeting our inclusion criteria were reviewed to quantify the frequency of milestone reporting. Key informant interviews were conducted with expert stakeholders to explore the feasibility and utility of tracking metrics using a framework analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed concurrently. Results Of the 282 public health emergencies occurring between 2018 and 2022, 129 events met our inclusion criteria, and complete data were available for 82 outbreaks. For our qualitative portion, 10 informants were interviewed from 7 institutions, representing the human, animal and environmental sectors. Informants agreed most One Health milestones are feasible to track, which was supported by the frequency of milestone reporting; however, there was a demonstrated need for increased reporting of after-action reviews, as well as outbreak start and end dates. Predictive alerts signalling potential outbreaks and preventive responses to alerts are seen as challenging to routinely capture, reflecting the lack of public health action for these domains. Conclusion Despite consensus among stakeholders that timeliness metrics are a beneficial tool to assess outbreak performance, not all One Health metrics are being tracked consistently, thereby missing opportunities to optimise epidemic intelligence, preparedness and prevention. The feasibility of tracking these metrics depends on the integration of reporting channels, enhanced documentation of milestones and development of guidance for early adopters, recognising country-specific on-the-ground realities and challenges to national scaling efforts. Data are available on reasonable request. The dataset generated and analysed in the study is available from the corresponding author, JAKM, on request.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013615\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013615","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:随着及时性指标在评估和优化疫情检测与响应绩效方面越来越受到重视,实施和推广工作需要深入了解采用这些工具的利益相关者的观点。乌干达是一个容易爆发世卫组织优先疾病的国家,本研究旨在确定在相关人类、动物、植物和环境部门跟踪 "同一健康 "疫情里程碑的可行性和实用性,以便系统地量化及时性指标。方法 汇编了 2018 年至 2022 年期间乌干达发生的疫情事件数据库。对符合我们纳入标准的疫情报告进行了审查,以量化里程碑报告的频率。对专家利益相关者进行了关键信息访谈,以探讨使用框架分析跟踪指标的可行性和实用性。同时收集并分析定量和定性数据。结果 在 2018 年至 2022 年期间发生的 282 起突发公共卫生事件中,有 129 起符合我们的纳入标准,82 起疫情有完整数据。在定性部分,我们采访了来自 7 个机构的 10 名信息提供者,他们分别代表人类、动物和环境部门。信息提供者一致认为,"一体健康 "的大多数里程碑事件都可以跟踪,里程碑事件的报告频率也证明了这一点;但是,显然需要增加对行动后审查以及疫情开始和结束日期的报告。显示潜在疫情爆发的预测性警报和对警报的预防性响应被认为难以进行例行记录,这反映出在这些领域缺乏公共卫生行动。结论 尽管利益相关者一致认为及时性指标是评估疫情表现的有利工具,但并非所有的 "一体健康 "指标都得到了持续跟踪,从而错失了优化流行病情报、准备和预防的机会。跟踪这些指标的可行性取决于报告渠道的整合、里程碑的强化记录以及为早期采用者制定指南,同时认识到具体国家的实际情况和国家推广工作面临的挑战。如有合理要求,可提供数据。研究中生成和分析的数据集可向通讯作者 JAKM 索取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How feasible or useful are timeliness metrics as a tool to optimise One Health outbreak responses?
Introduction As timeliness metrics gain traction to assess and optimise outbreak detection and response performance, implementation and scale-up require insight into the perspectives of stakeholders adopting these tools. This study sought to characterise the feasibility and utility of tracking One Health outbreak milestones across relevant human, animal, plant, and environmental sectors to systematically quantify timeliness metrics in Uganda, a country prone to outbreaks of WHO priority diseases. Methods A database of outbreak events occurring in Uganda between 2018 and 2022 was compiled. Outbreak reports meeting our inclusion criteria were reviewed to quantify the frequency of milestone reporting. Key informant interviews were conducted with expert stakeholders to explore the feasibility and utility of tracking metrics using a framework analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed concurrently. Results Of the 282 public health emergencies occurring between 2018 and 2022, 129 events met our inclusion criteria, and complete data were available for 82 outbreaks. For our qualitative portion, 10 informants were interviewed from 7 institutions, representing the human, animal and environmental sectors. Informants agreed most One Health milestones are feasible to track, which was supported by the frequency of milestone reporting; however, there was a demonstrated need for increased reporting of after-action reviews, as well as outbreak start and end dates. Predictive alerts signalling potential outbreaks and preventive responses to alerts are seen as challenging to routinely capture, reflecting the lack of public health action for these domains. Conclusion Despite consensus among stakeholders that timeliness metrics are a beneficial tool to assess outbreak performance, not all One Health metrics are being tracked consistently, thereby missing opportunities to optimise epidemic intelligence, preparedness and prevention. The feasibility of tracking these metrics depends on the integration of reporting channels, enhanced documentation of milestones and development of guidance for early adopters, recognising country-specific on-the-ground realities and challenges to national scaling efforts. Data are available on reasonable request. The dataset generated and analysed in the study is available from the corresponding author, JAKM, on request.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
The impact of a multi-faceted intervention on non-prescription dispensing of antibiotics by urban community pharmacies in Indonesia: a mixed methods evaluation. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): the evolution of a global health and development sector. Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence. Learning from the Montreal Protocol to improve the global governance of antimicrobial resistance. Leveraging investments, promoting transparency and mobilising communities: a qualitative analysis of news articles about how the Ebola outbreak informed COVID-19 response in five African countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1