Cargando…

Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO

OBJECTIVE: Daily COVID-19 data reported by WHO may provide the basis for political ad hoc decisions including travel restrictions. Data reported by countries, however, are heterogeneous and metrics to evaluate its quality are scarce. In this work, we analysed COVID-19 case counts provided by WHO and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abbood, Auss, Ullrich, Alexander, Denkel, Luisa A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9826924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36604131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061717
_version_ 1784866964703805440
author Abbood, Auss
Ullrich, Alexander
Denkel, Luisa A
author_facet Abbood, Auss
Ullrich, Alexander
Denkel, Luisa A
author_sort Abbood, Auss
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Daily COVID-19 data reported by WHO may provide the basis for political ad hoc decisions including travel restrictions. Data reported by countries, however, are heterogeneous and metrics to evaluate its quality are scarce. In this work, we analysed COVID-19 case counts provided by WHO and developed tools to evaluate country-specific reporting behaviours. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, COVID-19 data reported daily to WHO from 3 January 2020 until 14 June 2021 were analysed. We proposed the concepts of binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour and performed descriptive analyses for all countries with these metrics. We developed a score to evaluate the consistency of incidence and binary reporting rates. Further, we performed spectral clustering of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour to identify salient patterns in these metrics. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 222 countries and regions. Reporting scores varied between −0.17, indicating discrepancies between incidence and binary reporting rate, and 1.0 suggesting high consistency of these two metrics. Median reporting score for all countries was 0.71 (IQR 0.55–0.87). Descriptive analyses of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour showed constant reporting with a slight ‘weekend effect’ for most countries, while spectral clustering demonstrated that some countries had even more complex reporting patterns. CONCLUSION: The majority of countries reported COVID-19 cases when they did have cases to report. The identification of a slight ‘weekend effect’ suggests that COVID-19 case counts reported in the middle of the week may represent the best data basis for political ad hoc decisions. A few countries, however, showed unusual or highly irregular reporting that might require more careful interpretation. Our score system and cluster analyses might be applied by epidemiologists advising policy makers to consider country-specific reporting behaviours in political ad hoc decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9826924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98269242023-01-09 Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO Abbood, Auss Ullrich, Alexander Denkel, Luisa A BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: Daily COVID-19 data reported by WHO may provide the basis for political ad hoc decisions including travel restrictions. Data reported by countries, however, are heterogeneous and metrics to evaluate its quality are scarce. In this work, we analysed COVID-19 case counts provided by WHO and developed tools to evaluate country-specific reporting behaviours. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, COVID-19 data reported daily to WHO from 3 January 2020 until 14 June 2021 were analysed. We proposed the concepts of binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour and performed descriptive analyses for all countries with these metrics. We developed a score to evaluate the consistency of incidence and binary reporting rates. Further, we performed spectral clustering of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour to identify salient patterns in these metrics. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 222 countries and regions. Reporting scores varied between −0.17, indicating discrepancies between incidence and binary reporting rate, and 1.0 suggesting high consistency of these two metrics. Median reporting score for all countries was 0.71 (IQR 0.55–0.87). Descriptive analyses of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour showed constant reporting with a slight ‘weekend effect’ for most countries, while spectral clustering demonstrated that some countries had even more complex reporting patterns. CONCLUSION: The majority of countries reported COVID-19 cases when they did have cases to report. The identification of a slight ‘weekend effect’ suggests that COVID-19 case counts reported in the middle of the week may represent the best data basis for political ad hoc decisions. A few countries, however, showed unusual or highly irregular reporting that might require more careful interpretation. Our score system and cluster analyses might be applied by epidemiologists advising policy makers to consider country-specific reporting behaviours in political ad hoc decisions. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9826924/ /pubmed/36604131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061717 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Abbood, Auss
Ullrich, Alexander
Denkel, Luisa A
Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title_full Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title_fullStr Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title_full_unstemmed Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title_short Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO
title_sort understanding covid-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of covid-19 data reported to who
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9826924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36604131
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061717
work_keys_str_mv AT abboodauss understandingcovid19reportingbehaviourtosupportpoliticaldecisionmakingaretrospectivecrosssectionalstudyofcovid19datareportedtowho
AT ullrichalexander understandingcovid19reportingbehaviourtosupportpoliticaldecisionmakingaretrospectivecrosssectionalstudyofcovid19datareportedtowho
AT denkelluisaa understandingcovid19reportingbehaviourtosupportpoliticaldecisionmakingaretrospectivecrosssectionalstudyofcovid19datareportedtowho