Findings from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists' 2008 Assessment of State Reportable and Nationally Notifiable Conditions in the United States and Considerations for the Future

Jajosky, Ruth Ann; Rey, Araceli; Park, Meeyoung; Aranas, Aaron; Macdonald, Steven C.; Ferland, Lisa

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e318200f8da

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most notifiable diseases are rare or vaccine-preventable communicable diseases, such as polio, measles and malaria in elimination settings, but a number of non-communicable diseases such as cancer are reportable to cancer registries. The list of notifiable diseases varies from country to country, and in countries with decentralized health systems, different states or provinces may establish their own list of notifiable diseases while still adhering to national guidelines [199–201]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging the private sector in malaria surveillance: a review of strategies and recommendations for elimination settings

Bennett

Avanceña²,

Wegbreit³

et al. 2017

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn malaria elimination settings, all malaria cases must be identified, documented and investigated. To facilitate complete and timely reporting of all malaria cases and effective case management and follow-up, engagement with private providers is essential, particularly in settings where the private sector is a major source of healthcare. However, research on the role and performance of the private sector in malaria diagnosis, case management and reporting in malaria elimination settings is limited. Moreover, the most effective strategies for private sector engagement in malaria elimination settings remain unclear.MethodsTwenty-five experts in malaria elimination, disease surveillance and private sector engagement were purposively sampled and interviewed. An extensive review of grey and peer-reviewed literature on private sector testing, treatment, and reporting for malaria was performed. Additional in-depth literature review was conducted for six case studies on eliminating and neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa.ResultsThe private health sector can be categorized based on their commercial orientation or business model (for-profit versus nonprofit) and their regulation status within a country (formal vs informal). A number of potentially effective strategies exist for engaging the private sector. Conducting a baseline assessment of the private sector is critical to understanding its composition, size, geographical distribution and quality of services provided. Facilitating reporting, referral and training linkages between the public and private sectors and making malaria a notifiable disease are important strategies to improve private sector involvement in malaria surveillance. Financial incentives for uptake of rapid diagnostic tests and artemisinin-based combination therapy should be combined with training and community awareness campaigns for improving uptake. Private sector providers can also be organized and better engaged through social franchising, effective regulation, professional organizations and government outreach.ConclusionThis review highlights the importance of engaging private sector stakeholders early and often in the development of malaria elimination strategies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1901-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging the private sector in malaria surveillance: a review of strategies and recommendations for elimination settings

Bennett

Avanceña²,

Wegbreit³

et al. 2017

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the future, notifiable disease surveillance could be improved by an informatics-driven approach. 8,9 Since 2010, CDC has provided annual resources via the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases cooperative agreement to 57 state, local, and territorial health departments to improve electronic laboratory reporting. 8 Regarding recent changes in communications technology, responses were mixed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication Between Infectious Disease Physicians and US State and Local Public Health Agencies

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strong working relationships between infectious disease (ID) physicians and public health have resulted in the early detection of emerging infectious threats. From May 6 through June 5, 2015, we surveyed ID physicians in the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Emerging Infections Network about communications with public health. A total of 688 of 1491 (46%) members completed the survey, 624 (91%) of whom knew how to reach their health department directly for an urgent issue. Only 38 (6%) described communications with their health department as poor. Interest in newer technologies (eg, mobile smartphone applications) showed mixed results. Interest in a smartphone application differed significantly by years of ID experience, with 81 of 146 (55%) respondents with <5 years of ID experience, 172 of 359 (48%) respondents with 5 to 24 years of ID experience, and 61 of 183 (33%) respondents with ≥25 years of ID experience in favor of a smartphone application ( < .001). As more physicians adopt newer communication technologies, health departments should be prepared to incorporate these tools to communicate with ID physicians.

show abstract

“…9 In the interim, guidelines to standardize case definitions and other data elements might help jurisdictions developing novel animal bite or PEP reporting systems. 7,12 Recommendations should be general enough such that they still allow for local needs to be met (such as promotion of collaboration between clinicians and public health agencies) given the differences in policies and variability of rabies epidemiology between regions. 4 Furthermore, for an SHD trying to develop reporting guidelines, input from local health department representatives during the formative stages of the system will promote the acceptability of surveillance and completeness of reporting.…”

Section: • Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Bite and Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis Reporting—United States, 2013

Vora

Clippard

Stobierski

et al. 2015

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional investigations focusing on the value of information returned by PEP reporting and identifying best practices for implementation and management are needed. The lack of standardization between current animal bite and PEP reporting systems limits completeness of reporting and comparability of outcomes. National recommendations to standardize case definitions and other data elements might help jurisdictions developing new animal bite or PEP reporting systems.

show abstract

Findings from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists' 2008 Assessment of State Reportable and Nationally Notifiable Conditions in the United States and Considerations for the Future

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Engaging the private sector in malaria surveillance: a review of strategies and recommendations for elimination settings

Engaging the private sector in malaria surveillance: a review of strategies and recommendations for elimination settings

Communication Between Infectious Disease Physicians and US State and Local Public Health Agencies

Animal Bite and Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis Reporting—United States, 2013

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About