Cargando…

Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence

Enteric illness outbreaks are complex events, therefore, outbreak investigators use many different hypothesis generation methods depending on the situation. This scoping review was conducted to describe methods used to generate a hypothesis during enteric illness outbreak investigations. The search...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ickert, C., Cheng, J., Reimer, D., Greig, J., Hexemer, A., Kershaw, T., Waddell, L., Mascarenhas, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31558173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819001699
_version_ 1783461466686357504
author Ickert, C.
Cheng, J.
Reimer, D.
Greig, J.
Hexemer, A.
Kershaw, T.
Waddell, L.
Mascarenhas, M.
author_facet Ickert, C.
Cheng, J.
Reimer, D.
Greig, J.
Hexemer, A.
Kershaw, T.
Waddell, L.
Mascarenhas, M.
author_sort Ickert, C.
collection PubMed
description Enteric illness outbreaks are complex events, therefore, outbreak investigators use many different hypothesis generation methods depending on the situation. This scoping review was conducted to describe methods used to generate a hypothesis during enteric illness outbreak investigations. The search included five databases and grey literature for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 2 May 2015. Relevance screening and article characterisation were conducted by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. There were 903 outbreaks that described hypothesis generation methods and 33 papers which focused on the evaluation of hypothesis generation methods. Common hypothesis generation methods described are analytic studies (64.8%), descriptive epidemiology (33.7%), food or environmental sampling (32.8%) and facility inspections (27.9%). The least common methods included the use of a single interviewer (0.4%) and investigation of outliers (0.4%). Most studies reported using two or more methods to generate hypotheses (81.2%), with 29.2% of studies reporting using four or more. The use of multiple different hypothesis generation methods both within and between outbreaks highlights the complexity of enteric illness outbreak investigations. Future research should examine the effectiveness of each method and the contexts for which each is most effective in efficiently leading to source identification.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6805753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68057532019-11-01 Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence Ickert, C. Cheng, J. Reimer, D. Greig, J. Hexemer, A. Kershaw, T. Waddell, L. Mascarenhas, M. Epidemiol Infect Review Enteric illness outbreaks are complex events, therefore, outbreak investigators use many different hypothesis generation methods depending on the situation. This scoping review was conducted to describe methods used to generate a hypothesis during enteric illness outbreak investigations. The search included five databases and grey literature for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 2 May 2015. Relevance screening and article characterisation were conducted by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. There were 903 outbreaks that described hypothesis generation methods and 33 papers which focused on the evaluation of hypothesis generation methods. Common hypothesis generation methods described are analytic studies (64.8%), descriptive epidemiology (33.7%), food or environmental sampling (32.8%) and facility inspections (27.9%). The least common methods included the use of a single interviewer (0.4%) and investigation of outliers (0.4%). Most studies reported using two or more methods to generate hypotheses (81.2%), with 29.2% of studies reporting using four or more. The use of multiple different hypothesis generation methods both within and between outbreaks highlights the complexity of enteric illness outbreak investigations. Future research should examine the effectiveness of each method and the contexts for which each is most effective in efficiently leading to source identification. Cambridge University Press 2019-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6805753/ /pubmed/31558173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819001699 Text en © Public Health Agency of Canada 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
spellingShingle Review
Ickert, C.
Cheng, J.
Reimer, D.
Greig, J.
Hexemer, A.
Kershaw, T.
Waddell, L.
Mascarenhas, M.
Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title_full Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title_fullStr Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title_full_unstemmed Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title_short Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
title_sort methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31558173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819001699
work_keys_str_mv AT ickertc methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT chengj methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT reimerd methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT greigj methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT hexemera methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT kershawt methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT waddelll methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence
AT mascarenhasm methodsforgeneratinghypothesesinhumanentericillnessoutbreakinvestigationsascopingreviewoftheevidence