Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Country/Region as subject
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 15: 135, 2015 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25887692

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease surveillance has recently seen many changes including rapid growth of informal surveillance, acting both as competitor and a facilitator to traditional surveillance, as well as the implementation of the revised International Health Regulations. The present study aims to compare outbreak reporting by formal and informal sources given such changes in the field. METHODS: 111 outbreaks identified from June to December 2012 were studied using first formal source report and first informal source report collected by HealthMap, an automated and curated aggregator of data sources for infectious disease surveillance. The outbreak reports were compared for timeliness, reported content, and disease severity. RESULTS: Formal source reports lagged behind informal source reports by a median of 1.26 days (p=0.002). In 61% of the outbreaks studied, the same information was reported in the initial formal and informal reports. Disease severity had no significant effect on timeliness of reporting. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that recent changes in the field of surveillance improved formal source reporting, particularly in the dimension of timeliness. Still, informal sources were found to report slightly faster and with accurate information. This study emphasizes the importance of utilizing both formal and informal sources for timely and accurate infectious disease outbreak surveillance.


Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases , Disease Notification , Disease Outbreaks , Population Surveillance/methods , Communicable Diseases/classification , Communicable Diseases/epidemiology , Databases, Factual/standards , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Disease Notification/methods , Disease Notification/standards , Disease Outbreaks/classification , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Severity of Illness Index , Spatial Analysis , Time Factors
2.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 35(2): 341-7, 2016 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26858390

ABSTRACT

Real-time monitoring of mainstream and social media can inform public health practitioners and policy makers about vaccine sentiment and hesitancy. We describe a publicly available platform for monitoring vaccination-related content, called the Vaccine Sentimeter. With automated data collection from 100,000 mainstream media sources and Twitter, natural-language processing for automated filtering, and manual curation to ensure accuracy, the Vaccine Sentimeter offers a global real-time view of vaccination conversations online. To assess the system's utility, we followed two events: polio vaccination in Pakistan after a news story about a Central Intelligence Agency vaccination ruse and subsequent attacks on health care workers, and a controversial episode in a television program about adverse events following human papillomavirus vaccination. For both events, increased online activity was detected and characterized. For the first event, Twitter response to the attacks on health care workers decreased drastically after the first attack, in contrast to mainstream media coverage. For the second event, the mainstream and social media response was largely positive about the HPV vaccine, but antivaccine conversations persisted longer than the provaccine reaction. Using the Vaccine Sentimeter could enable public health professionals to detect increased online activity or sudden shifts in sentiment that could affect vaccination uptake.


Subject(s)
Communication , Internet , Papillomavirus Vaccines , Poliovirus Vaccines , Public Opinion , Vaccination/psychology , Health Surveys , Humans , Immunization/methods , Mass Media , Pakistan , Public Health , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , United States
3.
Pharmaceut Med ; 29(6): 331-340, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26635479

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preparing and submitting a voluntary adverse event (AE) report to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a medical device typically takes 40 min. User-friendly Web and mobile reporting apps may increase efficiency. Further, coupled with strategies for direct patient involvement, patient engagement in AE reporting may be improved. In 2012, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) launched a free, public mobile AE reporting app, MedWatcher, for patients and clinicians. During the same year, a patient community on Facebook adopted the app to submit reports involving a hysteroscopic sterilization device, brand name Essure®. METHODS: Patient community outreach was conducted to administrators of the group "Essure Problems" (approximately 18,000 members as of June 2015) to gather individual case safety reports (ICSRs). After agreeing on key reporting principles, group administrators encouraged members to report via the app. Semi-structured forms in the app mirrored fields of the MedWatch 3500 form. ICSRs were transmitted to CDRH via an electronic gateway, and anonymized versions were posted in the app. Data collected from May 11, 2013 to December 7, 2014 were analyzed. Narrative texts were coded by trained and certified MedDRA coders (version 17). Descriptive statistics and metrics, including VigiGrade completeness scores, were analyzed. Various incentives and motivations to report in the Facebook group were observed. RESULTS: The average Essure AE report took 11.4 min (±10) to complete. Submissions from 1349 women, average age 34 years, were analyzed. Serious events, including hospitalization, disability, and permanent damage after implantation, were reported by 1047 women (77.6 %). A total of 13,135 product-event pairs were reported, comprising 327 unique preferred terms, most frequently fatigue (n = 491), back pain (468), and pelvic pain (459). Important medical events (IMEs), most frequently mental impairment (142), device dislocation (108), and salpingectomy (62), were reported by 598 women (44.3 %). Other events of interest included loss of libido (n = 115); allergy to metals (109), primarily nickel; and alopecia (252). VigiGrade completeness scores were high, averaging 0.80 (±0.15). Reports received via the mobile app were considered "well documented" 55.9 % of the time, compared with an international average of 13 % for all medical products. On average, there were 15 times more reports submitted per month via the app with patient community support versus traditional pharmacovigilance portals. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach via an online patient community, coupled with an easy-to-use app, allowed for rapid and detailed ICSRs to be submitted, with gains in efficiency. Two-way communication and public posting of narratives led to successful engagement within a Motivation-Incentive-Activation-Behavior framework, a conceptual model for successful crowdsourcing. Reports submitted by patients were considerably more complete than those submitted by physicians in routine spontaneous reports. Further research is needed to understand how biases operate differently from those of traditional pharmacovigilance.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL