Digital functions in a participatory One Health surveillance initiative aiming for pandemic averting

Susampao, P.; Chanachai, Karoon; Petra, P.; Yano, Terdsak; Pattamakaew, Sakulrat; Laiya, Ekkachai; Srikitjakarn, Lertrak; Crawley, Adam W.; Olsen, Jennifer M.; Smolinski, Mark S.

doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2016.11.088

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The AfyaData system in Tanzania and the Participatory One Health Disease Detection (PODD) system in Thailand both apply event-based surveillance models with a One Health focus to community reporting for human, animal, and environmental health events [9,10,22]. These systems leverage the use of trained volunteers (rather than general public crowdsourcing) in local communities to report on health events that range from suspect cases of dengue fever, to disease outbreaks in livestock, to contamination of water sources.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many participatory disease surveillance systems have included useful information for the user, such as the location of vaccine distributors and mapping of disease activity [19,29]. Others have included health quizzes and other gamification approaches to increase user engagement and improve health promotion, while targeted alerts are used in some systems to trigger local government health interventions for the reporting population [9,10,20,31,32]. Though the degree to which IWOPS systems provide feedback to users varies greatly, it is likely that this mechanism will continue to be leveraged to provide greater value to users and increase participation in these systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Participatory Disease Surveillance: Engaging Communities Directly in Reporting, Monitoring, and Responding to Health Threats

Smolinski¹,

Crawley²,

Olsen³

et al. 2017

JMIR Public Health Surveill

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSince 2012, the International Workshop on Participatory Surveillance (IWOPS) has served as an informal network to share best practices, consult on analytic methods, and catalyze innovation to advance the burgeoning method of direct engagement of populations in voluntary monitoring of disease.ObjectiveThis landscape provides an overview of participatory disease surveillance systems in the IWOPS network and orients readers to this growing field of practice.MethodsAuthors reviewed participatory approaches that include human and animal health surveillance, both syndromic (self- reported symptoms) and event-based, and how these tools have been leveraged for disease modeling and forecasting. The authors also discuss benefits, challenges, and future directions for participatory disease surveillance.ResultsThere are at least 23 distinct participatory surveillance tools or programs represented in the IWOPS network across 18 countries. Organizations supporting these tools are diverse in nature.ConclusionsParticipatory disease surveillance is a promising method to complement both traditional, facility-based surveillance and newer digital epidemiology systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Disease Surveillance: Engaging Communities Directly in Reporting, Monitoring, and Responding to Health Threats

Smolinski¹,

Crawley²,

Olsen³

et al. 2017

JMIR Public Health Surveill

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 44 single-sector programs, 22 (50%) only collect data on human health, 10 (23%) only collect data on animal health, and 12 (27%) only collect data on environmental health (Table 1) [16,17,[20][21][22][23][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][35][36][37][38][39][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]56,57]. Among all 24 single-sector and multisector systems collecting data on animals, 16 (67%) only collect animal health data on wildlife, such as wild birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatics or fish [15][16][17][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][55][56][57]. In total, 8 (33%) systems collect data ...…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across the 26 systems that include data on environmental health, 16 (62%) collect data on vectors, 5 (19%) collect data on water quality, 3 (12%) collect data on food safety, 8 (31%) collect data on invasive species, 3 (12%) collect data on air quality, and 3 (12%) collect data on crops [15,[32][33][34][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54].…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 16 multisector programs, the landscape found 2 (13%) systems focused on the combination of human and animal health, 9 (56%) focus on animal and environmental health, 2 (13%) focus on human and environmental health, and 3 (19%) focus on human, animal, and environmental health [15,[32][33][34][40][41][42][43][44][53][54][55]. (20) Environment only 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 0 (0) 1 ( 25) 0 (0) 2 ( 6) 0 (0) 6.0 (0, 6-6) 2 (3) Human and animal 0 (0) 2 ( 29) 1 ( 6) 2 ( 15) 3 ( 19) 1 ( 25) 3 ( 15) 4 ( 13) 2 (20) 9.9 (4.7, 2-16) 9 (15) Animal and environment 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 ( 8) 1 ( 6) 0 (0) 2 ( 10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7.5 (2.12, 6-9) 2 (3) Human and environment 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 ( 15) 0 (0) 1 ( 25) 2 ( 10) 1 (3) 0 (0) 6.3 (1.5, 5-8) 3 ( 5) Human, animal, and environment a Data were from 60 participatory surveillance systems identified through the systematic literature review and surveys.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Landscape of Participatory Surveillance Systems Across the One Health Spectrum: Systematic Review

McNeil¹,

Verlander²,

Divi³

et al. 2022

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Participatory surveillance systems augment traditional surveillance systems through bidirectional community engagement. The digital platform evolution has enabled the expansion of participatory surveillance systems, globally, for the detection of health events impacting people, animals, plants, and the environment, in other words, across the entire One Health spectrum. Objective The aim of this landscape was to identify and provide descriptive information regarding system focus, geography, users, technology, information shared, and perceived impact of ongoing participatory surveillance systems across the One Health spectrum. Methods This landscape began with a systematic literature review to identify potential ongoing participatory surveillance systems. A survey was sent to collect standardized data from the contacts of systems identified in the literature review and through direct outreach to stakeholders, experts, and professional organizations. Descriptive analyses of survey and literature review results were conducted across the programs. Results The landscape identified 60 ongoing single-sector and multisector participatory surveillance systems spanning five continents. Of these, 29 (48%) include data on human health, 26 (43%) include data on environmental health, and 24 (40%) include data on animal health. In total, 16 (27%) systems are multisectoral; of these, 9 (56%) collect animal and environmental health data; 3 (19%) collect human, animal, and environmental health data; 2 (13%) collect human and environmental health data; and 2 (13%) collect human and animal health data. Out of 60 systems, 31 (52%) are designed to cover a national scale, compared to those with a subnational (n=19, 32%) or multinational (n=10, 17%) focus. All systems use some form of digital technology. Email communication or websites (n=40, 67%) and smartphones (n=29, 48%) are the most common technologies used, with some using both. Systems have capabilities to download geolocation data (n=31, 52%), photographs (n=29, 48%), and videos (n=6, 10%), and can incorporate lab data or sample collection (n=15, 25%). In sharing information back with users, most use visualization, such as maps (n=43, 72%); training and educational materials (n=37, 62%); newsletters, blogs, and emails (n=34, 57%); and disease prevention information (n=32, 53%). Out of the 46 systems responding to the survey regarding perceived impacts of their systems, 36 (78%) noted “improved community knowledge and understanding” and 31 (67%) noted “earlier detection.” Conclusions The landscape demonstrated the breadth of applicability of participatory surveillance around the world to collect data from community members and trained volunteers in order to inform the detection of events, from invasive plant pests to weekly influenza symptoms. Acknowledging the importance of bidirectionality of information, these systems simultaneously share findings back with the users. Such directly engaged community detection systems capture events early and provide opportunities to stop outbreaks quickly.

show abstract

Digital functions in a participatory One Health surveillance initiative aiming for pandemic averting

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Participatory Disease Surveillance: Engaging Communities Directly in Reporting, Monitoring, and Responding to Health Threats

Participatory Disease Surveillance: Engaging Communities Directly in Reporting, Monitoring, and Responding to Health Threats

The Landscape of Participatory Surveillance Systems Across the One Health Spectrum: Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About