The Validity of Self-Initiated, Event-Driven Infectious Disease Reporting in General Population Cohorts

11Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background:The 2009/2010 pandemic influenza highlighted the need for valid and timely incidence data. In 2007 we started the development of a passive surveillance scheme based on passive follow-up of representative general population cohorts. Cohort members are asked to spontaneously report all instances of colds and fevers as soon as they occur for up to 9 months. Suspecting that compliance might be poor, we aimed to assess the validity of self-initiated, event-driven outcome reporting over long periods.Methods:During two 8 week periods in 2008 and 2009, 2376 and 2514 cohort members in Stockholm County were sent one-week recall questionnaires, which served as reference method.Results:The questionnaires were completed by 88% and 86% of the cohort members. Whilst the false positive proportion (1-specificity) in the reporting was low (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤2% in each season), the false negative proportion (failure to report, 1-sensitivity) was considerable (60% [95% CI 52%-67%] in each season). Still, the resulting epidemic curves for influenza-like illness compared well with those from existing General Practitioner-based sentinel surveillance in terms of shape, timing of peak, and year-to-year variation. This suggested that the error was fairly constant.Conclusions:Passive long-term surveillance through self-initiated, event-driven outcome reporting underestimates incidence rates of common upper respiratory tract infections. However, because underreporting appears predictable, simple corrections could potentially restore validity. © 2013 Merk et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Merk, H., Kühlmann-Berenzon, S., Bexelius, C., Sandin, S., Litton, J. E., Linde, A., & Nyrén, O. (2013). The Validity of Self-Initiated, Event-Driven Infectious Disease Reporting in General Population Cohorts. PLoS ONE, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061644

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free