ArticleInfection prevention in practice2023
Pandemic management: Analysis of availability and relevance of surveillance indicators by COVID-Task-Forces in the German federal state of Lower Saxony.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2023. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Locally, the introduction of measures during times of a pandemic emergency is embodied in a pandemic containment plan created by the Robert Koch Institute in 2017. In addition to central indicators such as incidence rates and number of deaths, various indicators are used at the local level to assess the pandemic situation. So far, there hasn't been analyses of the availability and perceived relevance of the surveillance indicators used to manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by the local German pandemic task forces. Aim: This study examined whether local decision-makers had access to surveillance-related indicators in a way that they could be used to make informed decisions in response to the pandemic situation. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted, using an online questionnaire developed by experts of The Public Health Agency of Lower Saxony and The University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG). All local COVID-19 task forces of the German state of Lower-Saxony were enrolled in the study. Findings: The surveillance indicators assessed by survey respondents as most available and relevant are included under the German Infection Protection Act (IfSG). In contrast, the indicators that are not bound by the IfSG have a significantly lower availability and an inconsistent assessment of relevance. Conclusion: Against the background of efficiency, it seems central to be able to reliably provide the highly weighted surveillance indicators. Nevertheless, the relevance assessment gap between the indicators embedded in the IfSG and the ones that are not may be explained by cognitive processes such as anchoring bias. The collection and use of indicators to assess the pandemic situation and to evaluate measures should be the subject of continuous multidisciplinary discussions.
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.