Assessing the continuum of event-based biosurveillance through an operational lens.

This research follows the Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems, Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nearly a decade ago. Since then, models have been developed and complex systems have evolved with a breadth of disparate data to detect or forecast chemical, biological, and radiological events that have a significant impact on the One Health landscape. How the attributes identified in 2001 relate to the new range of event-based biosurveillance technologies is unclear. This article frames the continuum of event-based biosurveillance systems (that fuse media reports from the internet), models (ie, computational that forecast disease occurrence), and constructs (ie, descriptive analytical reports) through an operational lens (ie, aspects and attributes associated with operational considerations in the development, testing, and validation of the event-based biosurveillance methods and models and their use in an operational environment). A workshop was held in 2010 to scientifically identify, develop, and vet a set of attributes for event-based biosurveillance. Subject matter experts were invited from 7 federal government agencies and 6 different academic institutions pursuing research in biosurveillance event detection. We describe 8 attribute families for the characterization of event-based biosurveillance: event, readiness, operational aspects, geographic coverage, population coverage, input data, output, and cost. Ultimately, the analyses provide a framework from which the broad scope, complexity, and relevant issues germane to event-based biosurveillance useful in an operational environment can be characterized.

A pandemic influenza modeling and visualization tool.

The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza outlines a plan for community response to a potential pandemic. In this outline, state and local communities are charged with enhancing their preparedness. In order to help public health officials better understand these charges, we have developed a visual analytics toolkit (PanViz) for analyzing the effect of decision measures implemented during a simulated pandemic influenza scenario. Spread vectors based on the point of origin and distance traveled over time are calculated and the factors of age distribution and population density are taken into effect. Healthcare officials are able to explore the effects of the pandemic on the population through a geographical spatiotemporal view, moving forward and backward through time and inserting decision points at various days to determine the impact. Linked statistical displays are also shown, providing county level summaries of data in terms of the number of sick, hospitalized and dead as a result of the outbreak. Currently, this tool has been deployed in Indiana State Department of Health planning and preparedness exercises, and as an educational tool for demonstrating the impact of social distancing strategies during the recent H1N1 (swine flu) outbreak.

U.S. airport entry screening in response to pandemic influenza: modeling and analysis.

BACKGROUND: A stochastic discrete event simulation model was developed to assess the effectiveness of passenger screening for Pandemic Influenza (PI) at U.S. airport foreign entry. METHODS: International passengers arriving at 18 U.S. airports from Asia, Europe, South America, and Canada were assigned to one of three states: not infected, infected with PI, infected with other respiratory illness. Passengers passed through layered screening then exited the model. 80% screening effectiveness was assumed for symptomatic passengers; 6% asymptomatic passengers. RESULTS: In the first 100 days of a global pandemic, U.S. airport screening would evaluate over 17 M passengers with 800 K secondary screenings. 11,570 PI infected passengers (majority asymptomatic) would enter the U.S. undetected from all 18 airports. Foreign airport departure screening significantly decreased the false negative (infected/undetected) passengers. U.S. attack rates: no screening (26.9%-30.9%); screening (26.4%-30.6%); however airport screening results in 800 K-1.8 M less U.S. PI cases; 16 K-35 K less deaths (2% fatality rate). Antiviral medications for travel contact prophylaxis (10 contacts/PI passenger) were high - 8.8M. False positives from all 18 airports: 100-200/day. CONCLUSIONS: Foreign shore exit screening greatly reduces numbers of PI infected passengers. U.S. airport screening identifies 50% infected individuals; efficacy is limited by the asymptomatic PI infected. Screening will not significantly delay arrival of PI via international air transport, but will reduce the rate of new US cases and subsequent deaths.