Cargando…

Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention

BACKGROUND: During the 2009 influenza pandemic period, routine surveillance of influenza-like-illness (ILI) was conducted in The Netherlands by a network of sentinel general practitioners (GPs). In addition during the pandemic period, four other ILI/influenza surveillance systems existed. For pandem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Lange, Marit MA, Meijer, Adam, Friesema, Ingrid HM, Donker, Gé A, Koppeschaar, Carl E, Hooiveld, Mariëtte, Ruigrok, Nel, van der Hoek, Wim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24063523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-881
_version_ 1782293912564531200
author de Lange, Marit MA
Meijer, Adam
Friesema, Ingrid HM
Donker, Gé A
Koppeschaar, Carl E
Hooiveld, Mariëtte
Ruigrok, Nel
van der Hoek, Wim
author_facet de Lange, Marit MA
Meijer, Adam
Friesema, Ingrid HM
Donker, Gé A
Koppeschaar, Carl E
Hooiveld, Mariëtte
Ruigrok, Nel
van der Hoek, Wim
author_sort de Lange, Marit MA
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: During the 2009 influenza pandemic period, routine surveillance of influenza-like-illness (ILI) was conducted in The Netherlands by a network of sentinel general practitioners (GPs). In addition during the pandemic period, four other ILI/influenza surveillance systems existed. For pandemic preparedness, we evaluated the performance of the sentinel system and the others to assess which of the four could be useful additions in the future. We also assessed whether performance of the five systems was influenced by media reports during the pandemic period. METHODS: The trends in ILI consultation rates reported by sentinel GPs from 20 April 2009 through 3 January 2010 were compared with trends in data from the other systems: ILI cases self-reported through the web-based Great Influenza Survey (GIS); influenza-related web searches through Google Flu Trends (GFT); patients admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza, and detections of influenza virus by laboratories. In addition, correlations were determined between ILI consultation rates of the sentinel GPs and data from the four other systems. We also compared the trends of the five surveillance systems with trends in pandemic-related newspaper and television coverage and determined correlation coefficients with and without time lags. RESULTS: The four other systems showed similar trends and had strong correlations with the ILI consultation rates reported by sentinel GPs. The number of influenza virus detections was the only system to register a summer peak. Increases in the number of newspaper articles and television broadcasts did not precede increases in activity among the five surveillance systems. CONCLUSIONS: The sentinel general practice network should remain the basis of influenza surveillance, as it integrates epidemiological and virological information and was able to maintain stability and continuity under pandemic pressure. Hospital and virological data are important during a pandemic, tracking the severity, molecular and phenotypic characterization of the viruses and confirming whether ILI incidence is truly related to influenza virus infections. GIS showed that web-based, self-reported ILI can be a useful addition, especially if virological self-sampling is added and an epidemic threshold could be determined. GFT showed negligible added value.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3849360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38493602013-12-05 Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention de Lange, Marit MA Meijer, Adam Friesema, Ingrid HM Donker, Gé A Koppeschaar, Carl E Hooiveld, Mariëtte Ruigrok, Nel van der Hoek, Wim BMC Public Health Correspondence BACKGROUND: During the 2009 influenza pandemic period, routine surveillance of influenza-like-illness (ILI) was conducted in The Netherlands by a network of sentinel general practitioners (GPs). In addition during the pandemic period, four other ILI/influenza surveillance systems existed. For pandemic preparedness, we evaluated the performance of the sentinel system and the others to assess which of the four could be useful additions in the future. We also assessed whether performance of the five systems was influenced by media reports during the pandemic period. METHODS: The trends in ILI consultation rates reported by sentinel GPs from 20 April 2009 through 3 January 2010 were compared with trends in data from the other systems: ILI cases self-reported through the web-based Great Influenza Survey (GIS); influenza-related web searches through Google Flu Trends (GFT); patients admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed pandemic influenza, and detections of influenza virus by laboratories. In addition, correlations were determined between ILI consultation rates of the sentinel GPs and data from the four other systems. We also compared the trends of the five surveillance systems with trends in pandemic-related newspaper and television coverage and determined correlation coefficients with and without time lags. RESULTS: The four other systems showed similar trends and had strong correlations with the ILI consultation rates reported by sentinel GPs. The number of influenza virus detections was the only system to register a summer peak. Increases in the number of newspaper articles and television broadcasts did not precede increases in activity among the five surveillance systems. CONCLUSIONS: The sentinel general practice network should remain the basis of influenza surveillance, as it integrates epidemiological and virological information and was able to maintain stability and continuity under pandemic pressure. Hospital and virological data are important during a pandemic, tracking the severity, molecular and phenotypic characterization of the viruses and confirming whether ILI incidence is truly related to influenza virus infections. GIS showed that web-based, self-reported ILI can be a useful addition, especially if virological self-sampling is added and an epidemic threshold could be determined. GFT showed negligible added value. BioMed Central 2013-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3849360/ /pubmed/24063523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-881 Text en Copyright © 2013 de Lange et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
de Lange, Marit MA
Meijer, Adam
Friesema, Ingrid HM
Donker, Gé A
Koppeschaar, Carl E
Hooiveld, Mariëtte
Ruigrok, Nel
van der Hoek, Wim
Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title_full Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title_fullStr Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title_short Comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
title_sort comparison of five influenza surveillance systems during the 2009 pandemic and their association with media attention
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24063523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-881
work_keys_str_mv AT delangemaritma comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT meijeradam comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT friesemaingridhm comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT donkergea comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT koppeschaarcarle comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT hooiveldmariette comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT ruigroknel comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention
AT vanderhoekwim comparisonoffiveinfluenzasurveillancesystemsduringthe2009pandemicandtheirassociationwithmediaattention