ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2019
Timeliness of infectious disease reporting, the Netherlands, 2003 to 2017: law change reduced reporting delay, disease identification delay is next.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundTimely notification of infectious diseases is essential for effective disease control and needs regular evaluation.AimOur objective was to evaluate the effects that statutory adjustments in the Netherlands in 2008 and raising awareness during outbreaks had on notification timeliness.MethodsIn a retrospective analyses of routine surveillance data obtained between July 2003 and November 2017, delays between disease onset and laboratory confirmation (disease identification delay), between laboratory confirmation and notification to Municipal Health Services (notification delay) and between notification and reporting to the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (reporting delay) were analysed for 28 notifiable diseases. Delays before (period 1) and after the law change (periods 2 and 3) were compared with legal timeframes. We studied the effect of outbreak awareness in 10 outbreaks and the effect of specific guidance messages on disease identification delay for two diseases.ResultsWe included 144,066 notifications. Average notification delay decreased from 1.4 to 0.4 days across the three periods (six diseases; p < 0.05), reporting delay decreased mainly in period 2 (from 0.5 to 0.1 days, six diseases; p < 0.05). In 2016-2017, legal timeframes were met overall. Awareness resulted in decreased disease identification delay for three diseases: measles and rubella (outbreaks) and psittacosis (specific guidance messages).ConclusionsLegal adjustments decreased notification and reporting delays, increased awareness reduced identification delays. As disease identification delay dominates the notification chain, insight in patient, doctor and laboratory delay is necessary to further improve timeliness and monitor the impact of control measures during outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.