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
. 2023 Mar 15:151:e56.
doi: 10.1017/S0950268823000444.

DiD IT?: a differences-in-differences investigation tool to quantify the impact of local incidents on public health using real-time syndromic surveillance health data

Affiliations

DiD IT?: a differences-in-differences investigation tool to quantify the impact of local incidents on public health using real-time syndromic surveillance health data

Roger Morbey et al. Epidemiol Infect. .

Abstract

Syndromic surveillance was originally developed to provide early warning compared to laboratory surveillance, but it is increasing used for real-time situational awareness. When a potential threat to public health is identified, a rapid assessment of its impact is required for public health management. When threats are localised, analysis is more complex as local trends need to be separated from national trends and differences compared to unaffected areas may be due to confounding factors such as deprivation or age distributions. Accounting for confounding factors usually requires an in-depth study, which takes time. Therefore, a tool is required which can provide a rapid estimate of local incidents using syndromic surveillance data.Here, we present 'DiD IT?', a new investigation tool designed to measure the impact of local threats to public health. 'DiD IT?' uses a difference-in-differences statistical approach to account for temporal and spatial confounding and provide a direct estimate of impact due to incidents. Temporal confounding differences are estimated by comparing unaffected locations during and outside of exposure periods. Whilst spatial confounding differences are estimated by comparing unaffected and exposed locations outside of the exposure period. Any remaining differences can be considered to be the direct effect of the local incident.We illustrate the potential utility of the tool through four examples of localised health protection incidents in England. The examples cover a range of data sources including general practitioner (GP) consultations, emergency department (ED) attendances and a telehealth call and online health symptom checker; and different types of incidents including, infectious disease outbreak, mass-gathering, extreme weather and an industrial fire. The examples use the UK Health Security Agency's ongoing real-time syndromic surveillance systems to show how results can be obtained in near real-time.The tool identified 700 additional online difficulty breathing assessments associated with a severe thunderstorm, 53 additional GP consultations during a mumps outbreak, 2-3 telehealth line calls following an industrial fire and that there was no significant increase in ED attendances during the G7 summit in 2021.DiD IT? can provide estimates for the direct impact of localised events in real-time as part of a syndromic surveillance system. Thus, it has the potential for enhancing surveillance and can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of extending national surveillance to a more granular local surveillance.

Keywords: Causal inference; epidemiology; outbreak detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Daily counts for syndromic data around incidents, examples 1–4. Red triangles are exposed locations, black dots control locations. Grey columns show exposure periods.

References

    1. Smith GE et al. (2019) Syndromic surveillance: two decades experience of sustainable systems – its people not just data!. Epidemiology and Infection 147, e101. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yoon PW, Ising AI and Gunn JE (2017) Using syndromic surveillance for all-Hazards public health surveillance: successes, challenges, and the future. Public Health Reports 132, 3S–6S. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Todkill D et al. (2016) What is the utility of using syndromic surveillance systems during large subnational infectious gastrointestinal disease outbreaks? An observational study using case studies from the past 5 years in England. Epidemiology and Infection 144, 2241–2250. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Andersson T et al. (2014) Syndromic surveillance for local outbreak detection and awareness: evaluating outbreak signals of acute gastroenteritis in telephone triage, web-based queries and over-the-counter pharmacy sales. Epidemiology and Infection 142, 303–313. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van den Wijngaard CC et al. (2011) Evaluation of syndromic surveillance in the Netherlands: its added value and recommendations for implementation. Euro Surveillance 16, 235–240. - PubMed

Publication types