Comparing national infectious disease surveillance systems: China and the Netherlands

Abstract

BackgroundRisk assessment and early warning (RAEW) are essential components of any infectious disease surveillance system. In light of the International Health Regulations (IHR)(2005), this study compares the organisation of RAEW in China and the Netherlands. The respective approaches towards surveillance of arboviral disease and unexplained pneumonia were analysed to gain a better understanding of the RAEW mode of operation. This study may be used to explore options for further strengthening of global collaboration and timely detection and surveillance of infectious disease outbreaks.MethodsA qualitative study design was used, combining data retrieved from the literature and from semi-structured interviews with Chinese (5 national-level and 6 provincial-level) and Dutch (5 national-level) experts.ResultsThe results show that some differences exist such as in the use of automated electronic components of the early warning system in China (‘CIDARS’), compared to a more limited automated component in the Netherlands (‘barometer’). Moreover, RAEW units in the Netherlands focus exclusively on infectious diseases, while China has a broader ‘all hazard’ approach (including for example chemical incidents). In the Netherlands, veterinary specialists take part at the RAEW meetings, to enable a structured exchange/assessment of zoonotic signals.ConclusionDespite these differences, the main conclusion is that for the two infections studied, the early warning system in China and the Netherlands are remarkably similar considering their large differences in infectious disease history, population size and geographical setting. Our main recommendations are continued emphasis on international corporation that requires insight into national infectious disease surveillance systems, the usage of a One Health approach in infectious disease surveillance, and further exploration/strengthening of a combined syndromic and laboratory surveillance system.

Epidemiological shift and geographical heterogeneity in the burden of leptospirosis in China

“…Case information is entered by all healthcare providers at all level via a nationally-standard form into a web-based Notifiable Infectious Diseases Reporting Information System (NIDRIS). In addition, a national system called China Infectious Disease Automated-alert and Response System (CIDARS) have been developed since 2005 to provide real-time outbreak notifications [ 15 , 16 ]. In term of diagnosis, the provincial branches are responsible for testing suspected human patient and animal sera, collecting infected animals and identifying infectious isolates by culture and microscopic agglutination test (MAT) according to the national diagnostic criteria for leptospirosis issued by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) [ 17 ].…”

Melioidosis in Thailand: Present and Future

“…An immediate need is educating and supporting all hospitals with microbiological facilities to report their culture-confirmed melioidosis cases and their mortalities to Report 506. A long-term solution is to automate the reporting system, similar to the systems in the Netherlands and China [ 64 ]. Another option is to have all admission and laboratory data from all hospitals in Thailand collected into one central data system.…”

Status and Challenges of Public Health Emergency Management in China Related to COVID-19

“…These systems are four-level from the national to the county and include all health care institutions across the country, allowing for the development and application of an early warning system at the county level in China (13). Some studies have compared the Chinese emergency events surveillance system with those of other countries and have found that China has a broader "all-hazard" approach, including, for example, chemical incidents (14).…”