ArticleHealth security
The Cost and Public Health System Effects of Active Monitoring and Illness Response for Ebola Virus Disease: A Case Evaluation of Georgia.
Article in Health security. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In August 2014, the World Health Organization declared the Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa a public health emergency of international concern. After 2 imported cases of the disease were identified in the United States in autumn 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that all jurisdictions begin active monitoring of travelers at risk of developing Ebola virus disease for 21 days from the last day of a potential exposure to minimize the risk of disease transmission. Here we describe the infrastructure development, monitoring processes, total planned expenditures, and effects on the public health system in Georgia associated with active monitoring and illness response of all travelers from Ebola-affected West African countries from October 2014 to March 2016. We conducted qualitative interviews with Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) staff. We identified state active monitoring and illness response infrastructure investments and monitoring activities and state and federal funds spent in both areas. And, we evaluated whether active monitoring and illness response enhanced Georgia's ability to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks. Developing the infrastructure to support the monitoring and response required investment in information technology, training of public health and medical personnel, increasing laboratory capacity, and securing personal protective equipment. Estimated total expenditures were $8.25 million, with 76% spent on infrastructure and 17% on daily monitoring. The GDPH leveraged internal resources and partnerships to implement active monitoring and illness response. Infrastructure investment increased surveillance capacity, strengthened relationships between the GDPH and medical providers, and led to the creation of infectious disease transport and hospital networks. Active monitoring and illness response increased outbreak preparedness, but it warrants comparison with other possible responses to determine its overall value.
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.