Electronic information systems for One Health surveillance of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic scoping review

Abstract

IntroductionElectronic information systems (EIS) that implement a ‘One Health’ approach by integrating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data across the human, animal and environmental health sectors, have been identified as a global priority. However, evidence on the availability, technical capacities and effectiveness of such EIS is scarce.MethodsThrough a qualitative synthesis of evidence, this systematic scoping review aims to: identify EIS for AMR surveillance that operate across human, animal and environmental health sectors; describe their technical characteristics and capabilities; and assess whether there is evidence for the effectiveness of the various EIS for AMR surveillance. Studies and reports between 1 January 2000 and 21 July 2021 from peer-reviewed and grey literature in the English language were included.Results26 studies and reports were included in the final review, of which 27 EIS were described. None of the EIS integrated AMR data in a One Health approach across all three sectors. While there was a lack of evidence of thorough evaluations of the effectiveness of the identified EIS, several surveillance system effectiveness indicators were reported for most EIS. Standardised reporting of the effectiveness of EIS is recommended for future publications. The capabilities of the EIS varied in their technical design features, in terms of usability, data display tools and desired outputs. EIS that included interactive features, and geospatial maps are increasingly relevant for future trends in AMR data analytics.ConclusionNo EIS for AMR surveillance was identified that was designed to integrate a broad range of AMR data from humans, animals and the environment, representing a major gap in global efforts to implement One Health approaches to address AMR.

Integrative Digital Tools to Strengthen Data Management for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in the “One Health” Domain in Nepal

“…However, WHONET has several limitations in relation to capturing the microbiology data generated by hospitals and carries a high possibility of duplicate data entry. Furthermore, WHONET is unable to integrate data from the animal and environmental health sectors, although an adaptation for animal health data is in progress [ 24 , 25 ]. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has designed and developed a set of three tools to improve antimicrobial resistance surveillance in India.…”

One Health: Insights from Organizational & Social, Technology Assessment and Human Factors Perspectives

“…Even when evaluation studies are published, the One Health approach is almost never used to predict and evaluate the impact of the information systems on the environment. For example, in a review of antimicrobial resistance reporting information systems, none of the systems were evaluated in relation to their environmental impact, and only 4 out of 27 included animal data [18]. Therefore, there is a need to incorporate One Health approach into the EBHI paradigm.…”

Digital Monitoring of Antibiotic Resistance (ABR) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Literature Review

“…Six out of twelve studies included the analysis discussing the framework for ABR monitoring at global levels using WHONET and GLASS. All these initiatives rely on good quality data from the micro or the hospital levels to enable monitoring at national and global levels [20]. One of the studies indicates that among the 136 countries reporting to the Global Database for the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey (TrACSS) in 2019-2020, only 32 (24%) countries include integrated multisectoral ABR surveillance and monitoring in their NAPs [20].…”

“…All these initiatives rely on good quality data from the micro or the hospital levels to enable monitoring at national and global levels [20]. One of the studies indicates that among the 136 countries reporting to the Global Database for the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey (TrACSS) in 2019-2020, only 32 (24%) countries include integrated multisectoral ABR surveillance and monitoring in their NAPs [20]. However, the frameworks developed for use of these applications in LMICs have limited discussions about the context-specific challenges [23,24].…”