Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198845.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198845. eCollection 2018.

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

Affiliations

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

Corien Swaan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Timely notification of infectious diseases is crucial for prompt response by public health services. Adequate notification systems facilitate timely notification. A systematic literature review was performed to assess outcomes of studies on notification timeliness and to determine which aspects of notification systems are associated with timely notification.

Methodology: Articles reviewing timeliness of notifications published between 2000 and 2017 were searched in Pubmed and Scopus. Using a standardized notification chain, timeliness of reporting system for each article was defined as either sufficient (≥ 80% notifications in time), partly sufficient (≥ 50-80%), or insufficient (< 50%) according to the article's predefined timeframe, a standardized timeframe for all articles, and a disease specific timeframe. Electronic notification systems were compared with conventional methods (postal mail, fax, telephone, email) and mobile phone reporting.

Results: 48 articles were identified. In almost one third of the studies with a predefined timeframe (39), timeliness of notification systems was either sufficient or insufficient (11/39, 28% and 12/39, 31% resp.). Applying the standardized timeframe (45 studies) revealed similar outcomes (13/45, 29%, sufficient notification timeframe, vs 15/45, 33%, insufficient). The disease specific timeframe was not met by any study. Systems involving reporting by laboratories most often complied sufficiently with predefined or standardized timeframes. Outcomes were not related to electronic, conventional notification systems or mobile phone reporting. Electronic systems were faster in comparative studies (10/13); this hardly resulted in sufficient timeliness, neither according to predefined nor to standardized timeframes.

Conclusion: A minority of notification systems meets either predefined, standardized or disease specific timeframes. Systems including laboratory reporting are associated with timely notification. Electronic systems reduce reporting delay, but implementation needs considerable effort to comply with notification timeframes. During outbreak threats, patient, doctors and laboratory testing delays need to be reduced to achieve timely detection and notification. Public health authorities should incorporate procedures for this in their preparedness plans.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Notification timeline.
D: delay; T: time point; D1: delay between onset of disease and notification at local health department (LHD); D2: delay between ordering a laboratory confirmation test and notification at LHD; D3X and D3P: delays between laboratory conformation test result and notification at the LHD by the laboratory and by the physician respectively; D4: delays between notification at LHD and reporting at regional health department (RHD); D5: delay between reporting at RHD and the national health department (NHD). Arrows: delays used in this article.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Full electronic search strategy for pubmed.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Flow diagram search process.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Overview scores according predefined and standardized timeframes.

References

    1. Gibbons CL, Mangen MJ, Plass D, Havelaar AH, Brooke RJ, Kramarz P, et al. Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:147 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-147 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4015559. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. German RR, Lee LM, Horan JM, Milstein RL, Pertowski CA, Waller MN, et al. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-13):1–35; quiz CE1-7. . - PubMed
    1. Jajosky RA, Groseclose SL. Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health. 2004;4:29 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-4-29 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonacic Marinovic A, Swaan C, van Steenbergen J, Kretzschmar M. Quantifying reporting timeliness to improve outbreak control. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21(2):209–16. doi: 10.3201/eid2102.130504 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4313625. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO. International Health Regulations 2005. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246107/1/9789241580496-eng.pdf?...

Publication types