Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30947721›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Perspectives of Australian policy-makers on the potential benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance - a modified Delphi survey.

Chris Degeling, Jane Johnson, Gwendolyn L Gilbert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Evidence gaps and challenges in maintaining and increasing vaccine uptake: A Delphi survey with Australian stakeholders.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Building 233.G05D, Wollongong, NSW, 2500, Australia. degeling@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-3443
Jane JohnsonSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Gwendolyn L GilbertSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (AU) 1083079National Health and Medical Research Council (AU) 1102962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvent-based social media monitoring and pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) will enhance communicable disease surveillance research and systems. If linked electronically and scanned systematically, the information provided by these technologies could be mined to uncover new epidemiological patterns and associations much faster than traditional public health approaches. The benefits of earlier outbreak detection are significant, but implementation could be opposed in the absence of a social licence or if ethical and legal concerns are not addressed.

methodsA three-phase mixed-method Delphi survey with Australian policy-makers, health practitioners and lawyers (n = 44) was conducted to explore areas of consensus and disagreement over (1) key policy and practical issues raised by the introduction of novel communicable disease surveillance programmes; and (2) the most significant and likely risks from using social media content and WGS technologies in epidemiological research and outbreak investigations.

resultsPanellists agreed that the integration of social media monitoring and WGS technologies into communicable disease surveillance systems raised significant issues, including impacts on personal privacy, medicolegal risks and the potential for unintended consequences. Notably, their concerns focused on how these technologies should be used, rather than how the data was collected. Panellists held that social media users should expect their posts to be monitored in the interests of public health, but using those platforms to contact identified individuals was controversial. The conditions of appropriate use of pathogen WGS in epidemiological research and investigations was also contentious. Key differences amongst participants included the necessity for consent before testing and data-linkage, thresholds for action, and the legal and ethical importance of harms to individuals and commercial entities. The erosion of public trust was seen as the most significant risk from the systematic use of these technologies.

conclusionsEnhancing communicable disease surveillance with social-media monitoring and pathogen WGS may cause controversy. The challenge is to determine and then codify how these technologies should be used such that the balance between individual risk and community benefit is widely accepted. Participants agreed that clear guidelines for appropriate use that address legal and ethical concerns need to be developed in consultation with relevant experts and the broader Australian public.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelAttitudeData MiningEpidemiologic Research DesignTechnologyAustraliaCommunicable DiseasesDisease OutbreaksEthics, ResearchHealth PolicyHumansInformed ConsentPopulation SurveillancePublic HealthRisk AssessmentSocial Control, FormalAustraliaexpert consultationinfectious disease researchpolicy implementationpublic health surveillancetechnological innovation

Identifiers

PMID30947721
PMCPMC6449976
OpenAlexW2942961630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.