Although forecasts and other mathematical models have the potential to play an important role in mitigating the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, the extent to which these tools are used in public health decision making in the United States is unclear. Throughout 2015, we invited public health practitioners belonging to three national public health organizations to complete a cross-sectional survey containing questions on model awareness, model use, and communication with modelers. Of 39 respondents, 46.15% used models in their work, and 20.51% reported direct communication with those who create models. Over half (64.10%) were aware that influenza forecasts exist. The need for improved communication between practitioners and modelers was overwhelmingly endorsed, with over 50% of participants indicating the need for models more relevant to public health questions, increased frequency of telecommunication, and more plain language in discussing models. Model use for public health decision making must be improved if models are to reach their full potential as public health tools. Increased quality and frequency of communication between practitioners and modelers could be particularly useful in achieving this goal. It is important that improvements be made now, rather than waiting for the next public health crisis to occur.

Previous studies have examined the bibliographic accuracy of citations in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to assess reference accuracy in five national dental journals. One hundred references were randomly selected from the March, 1987, issue of each of five dental journals (a total of 500 references). Each reference was verified either from the original source or from other indexing tools if the original was unavailable. References were divided into two categories: incorrect and correct. The number of incorrect references was counted and subdivided into major and minor errors. The errors were grouped by types of error: author, article title, citation (which included errors in journal title, volume, issue, and page numbers), and "unable to verify". This survey found 211 (42%) inaccuracies out of 500 references reviewed, with a total of 248 errors within the incorrect group. Out of the latter, 173 (70%) were minor errors, and 75 (30%) were major errors. Types of minor errors ranked as follows: minor article title errors, 86 (35%); minor author errors, 61 (25%); and minor citation errors, 26 (10%). Types of major errors were ranked as follows: incorrect journal citation, 32 (13%); "unable to verify", 25 (10%); incorrect author, 10 (4%); and incorrect article title, 8 (3%). The results of this survey showed that nearly half of the references reviewed were inaccurate.