Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of acute viral hepatitis data quality using two methodologies, 2005-2007.
Public Health Rep. 2012 Nov-Dec; 127(6):591-7.PH

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We compared the quality of data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from sites that received funding for acute viral hepatitis surveillance through CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP) with sites that have electronic infrastructure to collect data but do not receive funding from CDC to support viral hepatitis surveillance.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on acute hepatitis A, B, and C cases reported from EIP sites and National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS)-based states (NBS) sites from 2005 to 2007. Data were compared for (1) completeness of demographic and risk behavior/exposure information; (2) adherence to CDC/Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) case definition for confirmed cases of acute hepatitis A, B, and C; and (3) timeliness of reporting to the health department.

RESULTS

Data reported for sex and age were at least 98% complete for both EIP and NBS sites and race/ethnicity was more complete for EIP sites. For acute hepatitis A, B, and C, case reports from EIP sites were more likely than those from NBS sites to include a "yes" response to at least one risk behavior/exposure variable and were more likely to meet the CDC/CSTE case definition. EIP sites received case reports in a more timely fashion than did NBS sites. The case definition for acute hepatitis C proved problematic for both EIP and NBS sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the EIP sites were more complete and reported in a more timely way to health departments than data from the NBS sites. Funding for follow-up activities is essential to providing surveillance data of higher quality for decision-making and public health response.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. kai9@cdc.govNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23115384

Citation

Iqbal, Kashif, et al. "Comparison of Acute Viral Hepatitis Data Quality Using Two Methodologies, 2005-2007." Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), vol. 127, no. 6, 2012, pp. 591-7.
Iqbal K, Klevens RM, Jiles R. Comparison of acute viral hepatitis data quality using two methodologies, 2005-2007. Public Health Rep. 2012;127(6):591-7.
Iqbal, K., Klevens, R. M., & Jiles, R. (2012). Comparison of acute viral hepatitis data quality using two methodologies, 2005-2007. Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 127(6), 591-7.
Iqbal K, Klevens RM, Jiles R. Comparison of Acute Viral Hepatitis Data Quality Using Two Methodologies, 2005-2007. Public Health Rep. 2012 Nov-Dec;127(6):591-7. PubMed PMID: 23115384.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of acute viral hepatitis data quality using two methodologies, 2005-2007. AU - Iqbal,Kashif, AU - Klevens,R Monina, AU - Jiles,Ruth, PY - 2012/11/2/entrez PY - 2012/11/2/pubmed PY - 2013/1/11/medline SP - 591 EP - 7 JF - Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) JO - Public Health Rep VL - 127 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality of data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from sites that received funding for acute viral hepatitis surveillance through CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP) with sites that have electronic infrastructure to collect data but do not receive funding from CDC to support viral hepatitis surveillance. METHODS: Descriptive analysis was conducted on acute hepatitis A, B, and C cases reported from EIP sites and National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS)-based states (NBS) sites from 2005 to 2007. Data were compared for (1) completeness of demographic and risk behavior/exposure information; (2) adherence to CDC/Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) case definition for confirmed cases of acute hepatitis A, B, and C; and (3) timeliness of reporting to the health department. RESULTS: Data reported for sex and age were at least 98% complete for both EIP and NBS sites and race/ethnicity was more complete for EIP sites. For acute hepatitis A, B, and C, case reports from EIP sites were more likely than those from NBS sites to include a "yes" response to at least one risk behavior/exposure variable and were more likely to meet the CDC/CSTE case definition. EIP sites received case reports in a more timely fashion than did NBS sites. The case definition for acute hepatitis C proved problematic for both EIP and NBS sites. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the EIP sites were more complete and reported in a more timely way to health departments than data from the NBS sites. Funding for follow-up activities is essential to providing surveillance data of higher quality for decision-making and public health response. SN - 1468-2877 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23115384/Comparison_of_acute_viral_hepatitis_data_quality_using_two_methodologies_2005_2007_ L2 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/003335491212700609?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -