Isolation and Quarantine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the United States, 2020-2022.

BACKGROUND: Public health programs varied in ability to reach people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their contacts to encourage separation from others. For both adult case patients with COVID-19 and their contacts, we estimated the impact of contact tracing activities on separation behaviors from January 2020 until March 2022. METHODS: We used a probability-based panel survey of a nationally representative sample to gather data for estimates and comparisons. RESULTS: An estimated 64 255 351 adults reported a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test result; 79.6% isolated for ≥5 days, 60.2% isolated for ≥10 days, and 79.2% self-notified contacts. A total of, 24 057 139 (37.7%) completed a case investigation, and 46.2% of them reported contacts to health officials. More adults who completed a case investigation isolated than those who did not complete a case investigation (≥5 days, 82.6% vs 78.2%, respectively; ≥10 days, 69.8% vs 54.8%; both P < .05). A total of 84 946 636 adults were contacts of a COVID-19 case patient. Of these, 73.1% learned of their exposure directly from a case patient; 49.4% quarantined for ≥5 days, 18.7% quarantined for ≥14 days, and 13.5% completed a contact tracing call. More quarantined among those who completed a contact tracing call than among those who did not complete a tracing call (≥5 days, 61.2% vs 48.5%, respectively; ≥14 days, 25.2% vs 18.0%; both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in contact tracing was positively correlated with isolation and quarantine. However, most adults with COVID-19 isolated and self-notified contacts regardless of whether the public health workforce was able to reach them. Identifying and reaching contacts was challenging and limited the ability to promote quarantining, and testing.

Progress Toward Equitable Mpox Vaccination Coverage: A Shortfall Analysis - United States, May 2022-April 2023.

More than 30,000 monkeypox (mpox) cases were reported in the United States during the 2022 multinational outbreak; cases disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). Substantial racial and ethnic disparities in incidence were also reported (1). The national mpox vaccination strategy* emphasizes that efforts to administer the JYNNEOS mpox vaccine should be focused among the populations at elevated risk for exposure to mpox (2). During May 2022-April 2023, a total of 748,329 first JYNNEOS vaccine doses (of the two recommended) were administered in the United States.† During the initial months of the outbreak, lower vaccination coverage rates among racial and ethnic minority groups were reported (1,3); however, after implementation of initiatives developed to expand access to mpox vaccination,§ coverage among racial and ethnic minority groups increased (1,4). A shortfall analysis was conducted to examine whether the increase in mpox vaccination coverage was equitable across all racial and ethnic groups (5). Shortfall was defined as the percentage of the vaccine-eligible population that did not receive the vaccine (i.e., 100% minus the percentage of the eligible population that did receive a first dose). Monthly mpox vaccination shortfalls were calculated and were stratified by race and ethnicity; monthly percent reductions in shortfall were also calculated compared with the preceding month's shortfall (6). The mpox vaccination shortfall decreased among all racial and ethnic groups during May 2022-April 2023; however, based on analysis of vaccine administration data with race and ethnicity reported, 66.0% of vaccine-eligible persons remained unvaccinated at the end of this period. The shortfall was largest among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (77.9%) and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (74.5%) persons, followed by non-Hispanic White (White) (66.6%) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) (63.0%) persons, and was lowest among non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (38.5%) and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI) (43.7%) persons. The largest percentage decreases in the shortfall were achieved during August (17.7%) and September (8.5%). However, during these months, smaller percentage decreases were achieved among Black persons (12.2% and 4.9%, respectively), highlighting the need for a focus on equity for the entirety of a public health response. Achieving equitable progress in JYNNEOS vaccination coverage will require substantial decreases in shortfalls among Black and AI/AN persons.

Estimates of Cases and Hospitalizations Averted by COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in 14 Health Jurisdictions in the United States.

CONTEXT: The implementation of case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) for controlling COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus) has proven challenging due to varying levels of public acceptance and initially constrained resources, especially enough trained staff. Evaluating the impacts of CICT will aid efforts to improve such programs. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted by CICT and identify CICT processes that could improve overall effectiveness. DESIGN: We used data on the proportion of cases interviewed, contacts notified or monitored, and days from testing to case and contact notification from 14 jurisdictions to model the impact of CICT on cumulative case counts and hospitalizations over a 60-day period. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVIDTracer Advanced tool, we estimated a range of impacts by assuming either contacts would quarantine only if monitored or would do so upon notification of potential exposure. We also varied the observed program metrics to assess their relative influence. RESULTS: Performance by jurisdictions varied widely. Jurisdictions isolated between 12% and 86% of cases (including contacts that became cases) within 6 to 10 days after infection. We estimated that CICT-related reductions in transmission ranged from 0.4% to 32%. For every 100 remaining cases after other nonpharmaceutical interventions were implemented, CICT averted between 4 and 97 additional cases. Reducing time to case isolation by 1 day increased averted case estimates by up to 15 percentage points. Increasing the proportion of cases interviewed or contacts notified by 20 percentage points each resulted in at most 3 or 6 percentage point improvements in averted cases. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that CICT reduced the number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations among all jurisdictions studied. Reducing time to isolation produced the greatest improvements in impact of CICT.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in Central Washington State, June-July 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate participation in COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing in central Washington State between June 15 and July 12, 2020. METHODS: In this retrospective observational evaluation we combined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen test reports from the Washington Disease Reporting System with community case investigation and contact tracing data for 3 health districts (comprising 5 counties) in central Washington State. All 3 health districts have large Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. RESULTS: Investigators attempted to call all referred individuals with COVID-19 (n = 4,987); 71% were interviewed. Of those asked about close contacts (n = 3,572), 68% reported having no close contacts, with similar proportions across ethnicity, sex, and age group. The 968 individuals with COVID-19 who named specific contacts (27% of those asked) reported a total of 2,293 contacts (mean of 2.4 contacts per individual with COVID-19); 85% of listed contacts participated in an interview. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with COVID-19 reported having no close contacts. Increasing community engagement and public messaging, as well as understanding and addressing barriers to participation, are crucial for CICT to contribute meaningfully to controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing in Two Counties - North Carolina, June-July 2020.

Contact tracing is a strategy implemented to minimize the spread of communicable diseases (1,2). Prompt contact tracing, testing, and self-quarantine can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (3,4). Community engagement is important to encourage participation in and cooperation with SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing (5). Substantial investments have been made to scale up contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States. During June 1-July 12, 2020, the incidence of COVID-19 cases in North Carolina increased 183%, from seven to 19 per 100,000 persons per day* (6). To assess local COVID-19 contact tracing implementation, data from two counties in North Carolina were analyzed during a period of high incidence. Health department staff members investigated 5,514 (77%) persons with COVID-19 in Mecklenburg County and 584 (99%) in Randolph Counties. No contacts were reported for 48% of cases in Mecklenburg and for 35% in Randolph. Among contacts provided, 25% in Mecklenburg and 48% in Randolph could not be reached by telephone and were classified as nonresponsive after at least one attempt on 3 consecutive days of failed attempts. The median interval from specimen collection from the index patient to notification of identified contacts was 6 days in both counties. Despite aggressive efforts by health department staff members to perform case investigations and contact tracing, many persons with COVID-19 did not report contacts, and many contacts were not reached. These findings indicate that improved timeliness of contact tracing, community engagement, and increased use of community-wide mitigation are needed to interrupt SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Bourbon Virus in Wild and Domestic Animals, Missouri, USA, 2012-2013.

Since its recent discovery, Bourbon virus has been isolated from a human and ticks. To assess exposure of potential vertebrate reservoirs, we assayed banked serum and plasma samples from wildlife and domestic animals in Missouri, USA, for Bourbon virus-neutralizing antibodies. We detected high seroprevalence in raccoons (50%) and white-tailed deer (86%).

Travel-Associated Zika Virus Disease Acquired in the Americas Through February 2016: A GeoSentinel Analysis.

Background: Zika virus has spread rapidly in the Americas and has been imported into many nonendemic countries by travelers. Objective: To describe clinical manifestations and epidemiology of Zika virus disease in travelers exposed in the Americas. Design: Descriptive, using GeoSentinel records. Setting: 63 travel and tropical medicine clinics in 30 countries. Patients: Ill returned travelers with a confirmed, probable, or clinically suspected diagnosis of Zika virus disease seen between January 2013 and 29 February 2016. Measurements: Frequencies of demographic, trip, and clinical characteristics and complications. Results: Starting in May 2015, 93 cases of Zika virus disease were reported. Common symptoms included exanthema (88%), fever (76%), and arthralgia (72%). Fifty-nine percent of patients were exposed in South America; 71% were diagnosed in Europe. Case status was established most commonly by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of blood and less often by PCR testing of other body fluids or serology and plaque-reduction neutralization testing. Two patients developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, and 3 of 4 pregnancies had adverse outcomes (microcephaly, major fetal neurologic abnormalities, and intrauterine fetal death). Limitation: Surveillance data collected by specialized clinics may not be representative of all ill returned travelers, and denominator data are unavailable. Conclusion: These surveillance data help characterize the clinical manifestations and adverse outcomes of Zika virus disease among travelers infected in the Americas and show a need for global standardization of diagnostic testing. The serious fetal complications observed in this study highlight the importance of travel advisories and prevention measures for pregnant women and their partners. Travelers are sentinels for global Zika virus circulation and may facilitate further transmission. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, International Society of Travel Medicine, and Public Health Agency of Canada.

Diagnosis and Management of Tickborne Rickettsial Diseases: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Other Spotted Fever Group Rickettsioses, Ehrlichioses, and Anaplasmosis - United States.

Tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to cause severe illness and death in otherwise healthy adults and children, despite the availability of low-cost, effective antibacterial therapy. Recognition early in the clinical course is critical because this is the period when antibacterial therapy is most effective. Early signs and symptoms of these illnesses are nonspecific or mimic other illnesses, which can make diagnosis challenging. Previously undescribed tickborne rickettsial diseases continue to be recognized, and since 2004, three additional agents have been described as causes of human disease in the United States: Rickettsia parkeri, Ehrlichia muris-like agent, and Rickettsia species 364D. This report updates the 2006 CDC recommendations on the diagnosis and management of tickborne rickettsial diseases in the United States and includes information on the practical aspects of epidemiology, clinical assessment, treatment, laboratory diagnosis, and prevention of tickborne rickettsial diseases. The CDC Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, in consultation with external clinical and academic specialists and public health professionals, developed this report to assist health care providers and public health professionals to 1) recognize key epidemiologic features and clinical manifestations of tickborne rickettsial diseases, 2) recognize that doxycycline is the treatment of choice for suspected tickborne rickettsial diseases in adults and children, 3) understand that early empiric antibacterial therapy can prevent severe disease and death, 4) request the appropriate confirmatory diagnostic tests and understand their usefulness and limitations, and 5) report probable and confirmed cases of tickborne rickettsial diseases to public health authorities.

Ebola Virus Diagnostics: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Laboratory in Sierra Leone, August 2014 to March 2015.

In August 2014, the Viral Special Pathogens Branch of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established a field laboratory in Sierra Leone in response to the ongoing Ebola virus outbreak. Through March 2015, this laboratory tested >12 000 specimens from throughout Sierra Leone. We describe the organization and procedures of the laboratory located in Bo, Sierra Leone.

A plan for community event-based surveillance to reduce Ebola transmission - Sierra Leone, 2014-2015.

Ebola virus disease (Ebola) was first detected in Sierra Leone in May 2014 and was likely introduced into the eastern part of the country from Guinea. The disease spread westward, eventually affecting Freetown, Sierra Leone's densely populated capital. By December 2014, Sierra Leone had more Ebola cases than Guinea and Liberia, the other two West African countries that have experienced widespread transmission. As the epidemic intensified through the summer and fall, an increasing number of infected persons were not being detected by the county's surveillance system until they had died. Instead of being found early in the disease course and quickly isolated, these persons remained in their communities throughout their illness, likely spreading the disease.

Phylogenetic and ecologic perspectives of a monkeypox outbreak, southern Sudan, 2005.

Identification of human monkeypox cases during 2005 in southern Sudan (now South Sudan) raised several questions about the natural history of monkeypox virus (MPXV) in Africa. The outbreak area, characterized by seasonally dry riverine grasslands, is not identified as environmentally suitable for MPXV transmission. We examined possible origins of this outbreak by performing phylogenetic analysis of genome sequences of MPXV isolates from the outbreak in Sudan and from differing localities. We also compared the environmental suitability of study localities for monkeypox transmission. Phylogenetically, the viruses isolated from Sudan outbreak specimens belong to a clade identified in the Congo Basin. This finding, added to the political instability of the area during the time of the outbreak, supports the hypothesis of importation by infected animals or humans entering Sudan from the Congo Basin, and person-to-person transmission of virus, rather than transmission of indigenous virus from infected animals to humans.

Presence and persistence of Coxiella burnetii in the environments of goat farms associated with a Q fever outbreak.

Q fever is a zoonotic disease caused by inhalation of the bacterium Coxiella burnetii. Ruminant livestock are common reservoirs for C. burnetii, and bacteria present in aerosols derived from the waste of infected animals can infect humans. The significance of infection from material deposited in the environment versus transmission directly from infected animals is not known. In 2011, an outbreak of Q fever cases on farms in Washington and Montana was associated with infected goats. A study was undertaken to investigate the quantity and spatial distribution of C. burnetii in the environment of these goat farms. Soil, vacuum, and sponge samples collected on seven farms epidemiologically linked to the outbreak were tested for the presence of C. burnetii DNA by quantitative PCR. Overall, 70.1% of the samples were positive for C. burnetii. All farms had positive samples, but the quantity of C. burnetii varied widely between samples and between farms. High quantities of C. burnetii DNA were in goat housing/birthing areas, and only small quantities were found in samples collected more than 50 m from these areas. Follow-up sampling at one of the farms 1 year after the outbreak found small quantities of C. burnetii DNA in air samples and large quantities of C. burnetii persisting in soil and vacuum samples. The results suggest that the highest concentrations of environmental C. burnetii are found in goat birthing areas and that contamination of other areas is mostly associated with human movement.

Effects of georeferencing effort on mapping monkeypox case distributions and transmission risk.

BACKGROUND: Maps of disease occurrences and GIS-based models of disease transmission risk are increasingly common, and both rely on georeferenced diseases data. Automated methods for georeferencing disease data have been widely studied for developed countries with rich sources of geographic referenced data. However, the transferability of these methods to countries without comparable geographic reference data, particularly when working with historical disease data, has not been as widely studied. Historically, precise geographic information about where individual cases occur has been collected and stored verbally, identifying specific locations using place names. Georeferencing historic data is challenging however, because it is difficult to find appropriate geographic reference data to match the place names to. Here, we assess the degree of care and research invested in converting textual descriptions of disease occurrence locations to numerical grid coordinates (latitude and longitude). Specifically, we develop three datasets from the same, original monkeypox disease occurrence data, with varying levels of care and effort: the first based on an automated web-service, the second improving on the first by reference to additional maps and digital gazetteers, and the third improving still more based on extensive consultation of legacy surveillance records that provided considerable additional information about each case. To illustrate the implications of these seemingly subtle improvements in data quality, we develop ecological niche models and predictive maps of monkeypox transmission risk based on each of the three occurrence data sets. RESULTS: We found macrogeographic variations in ecological niche models depending on the type of georeferencing method used. Less-careful georeferencing identified much smaller areas as having potential for monkeypox transmission in the Sahel region, as well as around the rim of the Congo Basin. These results have implications for mapping efforts, as each higher level of georeferencing precision required considerably greater time investment. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of careful georeferencing cannot be overlooked, despite it being a time- and labor-intensive process. Investment in archival storage of primary disease-occurrence data is merited, and improved digital gazetteers are needed to support public health mapping activities, particularly in developing countries, where maps and geographic information may be sparse.

Rickettsia parkeri Rickettsiosis, Argentina.

Rickettsia parkeri, a recently identified cause of spotted fever rickettsiosis in the United States, has been found in Amblyomma triste ticks in several countries of South America, including Argentina, where it is believed to cause disease in humans. We describe the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of 2 patients in Argentina with confirmed R. parkeri infection and 7 additional patients with suspected R. parkeri rickettsiosis identified at 1 hospital during 2004-2009. The frequency and character of clinical signs and symptoms among these 9 patients closely resembled those described for patients in the United States (presence of an inoculation eschar, maculopapular rash often associated with pustules or vesicles, infrequent gastrointestinal manifestations, and relatively benign clinical course). Many R. parkeri infections in South America are likely to be misdiagnosed as other infectious diseases, including Rocky Mountain spotted fever, dengue, or leptospirosis.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Outcomes in Washington State, August and October 2020.

Introduction: Case investigation and contact tracing are important tools to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, particularly when implemented efficiently. Our objective was to evaluate participation in and timeliness of COVID-19 contact tracing and whether these measures changed over time. Methods: We retrospectively assessed COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing surveillance data from the Washington State centralized program for August 1-31, 2020 and October 1-31, 2020. We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing reports with contact tracing data to compare completeness, reporting of contacts, and program timeliness. Results: For August and October respectively, 4,600 (of 12,521) and 2,166 (of 16,269) individuals with COVID-19 were referred to the state program for case investigation. Investigators called 100% of referred individuals; 65% (August) and 76% (October) were interviewed. Of individuals interviewed, 33% reported contacts in August and 45% in October, with only mild variation by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urbanicity. In August, 992 individuals with COVID-19 reported a total of 2,584 contacts (mean, 2.6), and in October, 739 individuals reported 2,218 contacts (mean, 3.0). Among contacts, 86% and 78% participated in interviews for August and October. The median time elapsed from specimen collection to contact interview was 4 days in August and 3 days in October, and from symptom onset to contact interview was 7 days in August and 6 days in October. Conclusions: While contact tracing improved with time, the proportion of individuals disclosing contacts remained below 50% and differed minimally by demographic characteristics. The longest time interval occurred between symptom onset and test result notification. Improving elicitation of contacts and timeliness of contact tracing may further decrease SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.

Distribution and Occurrence of Amblyomma maculatum sensu lato (Acari: Ixodidae) and Rickettsia parkeri (Rickettsiales: Rickettsiaceae), Arizona and New Mexico, 2017-2019.

Amblyomma maculatum Koch sensu lato (s.l.) ticks are the vector of Rickettsia parkeri in Arizona, where nine cases of R. parkeri rickettsiosis have been identified since the initial case in 2014. The current study sought to better define the geographic ranges of the vector and pathogen and to assess the potential public health risk posed by R. parkeri in this region of the southwestern United States. A total of 275 A. maculatum s.l. ticks were collected from 34 locations in four counties in Arizona and one county in New Mexico and screened for DNA of Rickettsia species. Rickettsia parkeri was detected in 20.4% of the ticks, including one specimen collected from New Mexico, the first report of R. parkeri in A. maculatum s.l. from this state. This work demonstrates a broader distribution of A. maculatum s.l. ticks and R. parkeri in the southwestern United States than appreciated previously to suggest that R. parkeri rickettsiosis is underrecognized in this region.

Rickettsia parkeri and "Candidatus Rickettsia andeanae" in Amblyomma maculatum (Acari: Ixodidae) collected from the Atlanta metropolitan area, Georgia, United States.

Rickettsia parkeri is a recently recognized human pathogen transmitted in the southeastern United States by Amblyomma maculatum, the Gulf Coast tick. Since R. parkeri was conclusively identified as a human pathogen in 2004, over 40 cases of R. parkeri rickettsiosis have been identified in the United States, most of which occur in the southeastern states. During 2012-2014, five of these cases were identified by a single urgent care practice in Coweta County, a Georgia county within the Atlanta metropolitan area. To investigate the occurrence of R. parkeri-infected A. maculatum in the Atlanta metropolitan area, ticks were collected from 6 counties around the city of Atlanta and evaluated for infection with a Rickettsia species. A total of 263 questing adult A. maculatum were collected during 2015 and 2016. Of these, 93 (35%) were PCR-positive for DNA of R. parkeri and an additional 46 (17%) were PCR-positive for DNA of "Candidatus Rickettsia andeanae," a spotted fever group Rickettsia species of unknown pathogenicity. No co-infections of these two rickettsiae were detected; however four of the six counties sampled showed presence of both rickettsial organisms. The high frequency of R. parkeri in these tick populations indicates a potential risk for those living, working, or recreating in A. maculatum-infested habitats within these six counties in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

The eyes have it: influenza virus infection beyond the respiratory tract.

Avian and human influenza A viruses alike have shown a capacity to use the eye as a portal of entry and cause ocular disease in human beings. However, whereas influenza viruses generally represent a respiratory pathogen and only occasionally cause ocular complications, the H7 virus subtype stands alone in possessing an ocular tropism. Clarifying what confers such non-respiratory tropism to a respiratory virus will permit a greater ability to identify, treat, and prevent zoonotic human infection following ocular exposure to influenza viruses; especially those within the H7 subtype, which continue to cause avian epidemics on many continents.

Enabling clinicians to easily find location-based travel health recommendations-is innovation needed?

Background: The types of place names and the level of geographic detail that patients report to clinicians regarding their intended travel itineraries vary. The reported place names may not match those in published travel health recommendations, making traveler-specific recommendations potentially difficult and time-consuming to identify. Most published recommendations are at the country level; however, subnational recommendations exist when documented disease risk varies within a country, as for malaria and yellow fever. Knowing the types of place names reported during consultations would be valuable for developing more efficient ways of searching and identifying recommendations, hence we inventoried these descriptors and identified patterns in their usage. Methods: The data analyzed were previously collected individual travel itineraries from pretravel consultations performed at Global TravEpiNet (GTEN) travel clinic sites. We selected a clinic-stratified random sample of records from 18 GTEN clinics that contained responses to an open-ended question describing itineraries. We extracted and classified place names into nine types and analyzed patterns relative to common travel-related demographic variables. Results: From the 1756 itineraries sampled, 1570 (89%) included one or more place names, totaling 3366 place names. The frequency of different types of place names varied considerably: 2119 (63%) populated place, 336 (10%) tourist destination, 283 (8%) physical geographic area, 206 (6%) vague subnational area, 163 (5%) state, 153 (5%) country, 48 (1%) county, 12 (1%) undefined. Conclusions: The types of place names used by travelers to describe travel itineraries during pretravel consultations were often different from the ones referenced in travel health recommendations. This discrepancy means that clinicians must use additional maps, atlases or online search tools to cross-reference the place names given to the available recommendations. Developing new clinical tools that use geographic information systems technology would make it easier and faster for clinicians to find applicable recommendations for travelers.