Variations in Healthcare Provider Use of Public Health and Other Information Sources by Provider Type and Practice Setting During New York City's Response to the Emerging Threat of Zika Virus Disease, 2016

Abstract

The New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) used multiple methods to provide guidance to healthcare providers on the management and prevention of Zika virus disease during 2016. To better understand providers' use of information sources related to emerging disease threats, this article describes reported use of information sources by NYC providers to stay informed about Zika, and patterns observed by provider type and practice setting. We sent an electronic survey to all email addresses in the Provider Data Warehouse, a system used to maintain information from state and local health department sources on all prescribing healthcare providers in NYC. The survey asked providers about their use of information sources, including specific information products offered by the NYC DOHMH, to stay informed about Zika during 2016. Trends by provider type and practice setting were described using summary statistics. The survey was sent to 44,455 unique email addresses; nearly 20% (8,711) of the emails were undeliverable. Ultimately, 1,447 (5.8%) eligible providers completed the survey. Most respondents (79%) were physicians. Overall, the most frequently reported source of information from the NYC DOHMH was the NYC Health Alert Network (73%). Providers in private practice reported that they did not use any NYC DOHMH source of information about Zika more frequently than did those working in hospital settings (29% vs 23%); similarly, private practitioners reported that they did not use any other source of information about Zika more frequently than did those working in hospital settings (16% vs 8%). Maintaining timely and accurate databases of healthcare provider contact information is a challenge for local public health agencies. Effective strategies are needed to identify and engage independently practicing healthcare providers to improve communications with all healthcare providers during public health emergencies.

On the front line: Health professionals and system preparedness for Zika virus in Peru

“…Studies have shown that health personnel in Zika endemic areas have a high level of awareness, but a low level of knowledge and preventive practices related to Zika virus prevention; especially as it relates to sexual transmission and prevention of sexual transmission . Our results similarly demonstrate that frontline healthcare personnel in Piura (nurses and midwives) generally know about Zika virus but have received uneven training.…”

Integrated Intervention Program for Pregnant Women Toward ZIKΑ Virus Infection in Upper Egypt

“…[37] Similarly, this was supported by other studies have shown that health personnel in ZIKА endemic areas have a low level of preventive practices related to ZIKА virus prevention. [76][77] Also, another study declared that insufficient participants practices in ZIKА prevention. [45] In the same line the results agreed with the finding showed all categories of healthcare providers showed а low level of knowledge and practices in pre-program as compared to post-program.…”

Knowledge exchange in crisis settings: A scoping review

“…Evidence access approaches included public or member-only repositories (e.g. websites, hubs, portals) [49,52,62], the use of rapid evidence response teams/services [46,72]; free/open access to journals [50,58,60] and communication mechanisms such as email lists and bulletins [40,42,49,56]. Learning resources (e.g.…”

“…Practical barriers were associated with maintaining information systems for KE (e.g. platforms/databases) [32,34,40,47,56,60,64,65,76,86,93,102,103,109,112], a lack of IT/technical capability [32,71,84,107,110] and sensitivities with sharing data [52,76,102,103]. Barriers associated with delivering KE were also highlighted (e.g., insufficient reach of activities) [26,53,54,74,106,112], with several studies pointing to a lack of human and financial resources to support KE [34,47,53,54,[57][58][59]65,66,72,74,75,81,92,102,106].…”

“…Similarly, existing capacity for KE (staffing and resources) in organisations [44,72,104,106] and the ability to mobilise in-kind time and expertise [72] in response to a crisis was highlighted as important for effective KE. Technology was reported to facilitate stakeholder participation and reach [56], augmenting more traditional methods of dissemination across remote or multiple locations [72] and reducing travel and geographical barriers [57,72]. Within organisations, leadership and management commitments [24,26,31,53,70,81,102,104,107,112] created an enabling environment for KE.…”