Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches

Authors: Clementine Calba, Flavie L Goutard, Linda Hoinville, Pascal Hendrikx, Ann Lindberg, Claude Saegerman, Marisa Peyre

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Regular and relevant evaluations of surveillance systems are essential to improve their performance and cost-effectiveness. With this in mind several organizations have developed evaluation approaches to facilitate the design and implementation of these evaluations.

Methods

In order to identify and to compare the advantages and limitations of these approaches, we implemented a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).

Results

After applying exclusion criteria and identifying other additional documents via citations, 15 documents were retained. These were analysed to assess the field (public or animal health) and the type of surveillance systems targeted; the development process; the objectives; the evaluation process and its outputs; and the attributes covered. Most of the approaches identified were general and provided broad recommendations for evaluation. Several common steps in the evaluation process were identified: (i) defining the surveillance system under evaluation, (ii) designing the evaluation process, (iii) implementing the evaluation, and (iv) drawing conclusions and recommendations.

Conclusions

A lack of information regarding the identification and selection of methods and tools to assess the evaluation attributes was highlighted; as well as a lack of consideration of economic attributes and sociological aspects.
Literature
1.
Declich S, Carter A. Public health surveillance: historical origins, methods and evaluation. Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72:285–304.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Corley CD, Lancaster MJ, Brigantic RT, Chung JS, Walters RA, Arthur RR, et al. Assessing the continuum of event-based biosurveillance through an operational lens. Biosecur Bioterror. 2012;10:131–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Drewe J, Hoinville L, Cook A, Floyd T, Stärk K. Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review. Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140:575–90.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Shahab S. Finding value in the evaluation of public health syndromic surveillance systems from a policy perspective. In: Finding value in the evaluation of public health syndromic surveillance systems from a policy perspective. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Health Services; 2009. p. 1–24.
5.
Health Surveillance Coordinating Committee. Framework and tools for evaluating health surveillance systems. In: Framework and tools for evaluating health surveillance systems. Vancouver, Canada: Health Canada; 2004.
6.
Klaucke ND. Evaluating public health surveillance systems. In: Halperin W, Baker EL, Monson RR, editors. Public health surveillance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1992. p. 26–41.
7.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Yoshimizu M, Hori Y, Yoshinaka T, Kimura T, Leong J, Rodgers C. Evaluation of methods used to detect the prevalence of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) virus in the surveillance and monitoring of fish health for risk assessment. In: Rodgers C, editor. Risk analysis in aquatic animal health; 8–10 February; Paris, France. Paris, France: Office International des Épizooties (OIE); 2001. p. 276–81.
16.
Solberg S. Forest health monitoring: evaluation of methods, trends and causes based on a Norwegian Nationwide set of monitoring plots, Dr. Agric. Thesis, Agricultural University of Norway. 1999.
17.
Teutsch G, Ptak T, Schwarz R, Hoder T. A new integral procedure for the quantification of groundwater contamination. J Contam Hydrol. 2000;75:183–213.
18.
19.
20.
World Health Organization. Communicable disease surveillance and response systems: guide to monitoring and evaluating. In: Communicable disease surveillance and response systems: guide to monitoring and evaluating. City: Wolrd Health Organization (WHO); 2006. p. 90.
21.
World Health Organization. Protocol for the evaluation of epidemiological surveillance systems. In: Protocol for the evaluation of epidemiological surveillance systems. City: World Health Organization (WHO); 1997. p. 49.
22.
Meynard JB, Chaudet H, Green AD, Jefferson HL, Texier G, Webber D, et al. Proposal of a framework for evaluating military surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks on duty areas. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:46.CrossRef
23.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Framework for the evaluation and assessment of EU-wide surveillance networks in 2006–2008. In: Framework for the evaluation and assessment of EU-wide surveillance networks in 2006–2008. City: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC); 2006. p. 13.
24.
Buehler JW, Hopkins RS, Overhage MJ, Sosin DM, Tong V. Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group. In: Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group, vol. 53. City: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2004. p. 1–11.
25.
Kansanterveyslaitos Folkhälsoinstitutet. Protocol for the evaluation of EU-wide surveillance networks on communicable diseases. In: Protocol for the evaluation of EU-wide surveillance networks on communicable diseases. City: National Public Health Institute (KTL); 2004. p. 59.
26.
German RR, Lee L, Horan J, Milstein R, Pertowski C, Waller M. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. In: Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems, vol. 50. City: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2001. p. 1–35.
27.
Hendrikx P, Gay E, Chazel M, Moutou F, Danan C, Richomme C, et al. OASIS: an assessment tool of epidemiological surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol Infect. 2011;139:1486–96.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Drewe J, Hoinville L, Cook A, Floyd T, Gunn G, Stärk K. SERVAL: a new framework for the evaluation of animal health surveillance. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2013;62:1–13.
29.
Dufour B. Technical and economic evaluation method for use in improving infectious animal disease surveillance networks. Vet Res. 1999;30:27–37.PubMed
30.
Malecki KC, Resnick B, Burke TA. Effective environmental public health surveillance programs: a framework for identifying and evaluating data resources and indicators. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:543–51.CrossRefPubMed
31.
El Allaki F, Bigras-Poulin M, Ravel A. Conceptual evaluation of population health surveillance programs: method and example. Prev Vet Med. 2013;108:241–52.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Dufour B, Hendrickx P. Surveillance épidémiologique en santé animale. In: Éditions Quæ. 3r ed. Paris, France: AEEMA and CIRAD, Maison Alfort. 2011.
33.
Peyre M, Hoinville L, Häsler B, Lindberg A, Bisdorff B, Dorea F, et al. Network analysis of surveillance system evaluation attributes: a way towards improvement of the evaluation process. Havana, Cuba: Presented at the International Conference for Animal Health Surveillance (ICAHS2); 2014.
34.
Auer AM, Dobmeier TM, Haglund BJ, Tillgren P. The relevance of WHO injury surveillance guidelines for evaluation: learning from the Aboriginal Community-Centered Injury Surveillance System (ACCISS) and two institution-based systems. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:744.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches
Authors
Clementine Calba
Flavie L Goutard
Linda Hoinville
Pascal Hendrikx
Ann Lindberg
Claude Saegerman
Marisa Peyre
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Responses and relationship dynamics of men and their spouses during active surveillance for prostate cancer: health literacy as an inquiry framework

Research article

Nutritional status of children in a malaria meso endemic area: cross sectional study on prevalence, intensity, predictors, influence on malaria parasitaemia and anaemia severity

Research article

Early motherhood: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of African Australian teenage mothers in greater Melbourne, Australia

Research article

Unintended pregnancy among female sex workers in Mekelle city, northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Under the banyan tree - exclusion and inclusion of people with mental disorders in rural North India

Research article

‘What a man can do, a woman can do better’: gendered alcohol consumption and (de)construction of social identity among young Nigerians