ArticleMilitary medicine2024
Force Health Surveillance in NATO Does Not Meet the Needs of Its Users: A Structured Evaluation of EpiNATO-2.
Article in Military medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDisease and non-battle injuries (DNBIs) cause substantial losses among military personnel. NATO has monitored DNBIs among its personnel since 1996 using multiple versions of a tool now called EpiNATO-2, but the surveillance system has never been systematically evaluated. Following a request from NATO to the CDC, the objective of this study was to assess surveillance system attributes of EpiNATO-2 using CDC's updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween June and October 2022, a literature review and key informant interviews were conducted to assess the following attributes: usefulness, simplicity, flexibility, data quality, acceptability, sensitivity, positive predictive value, representativeness, timeliness, stability, informatics system quality, informatics service quality, and informatics interoperability. Key informant interviews were conducted in Kosovo, Germany, and remotely with EpiNATO-2 users spanning three levels: clinical and data entry personnel (tactical level); regional medical and public health officers (operational level); and senior commanders and other governmental entities (strategic level).
resultsFourteen EpiNATO-2 users participated in interviews, representing 3 of the 5 major NATO missions, 3 partner entities, and 7 nationalities. All users (100%) reported that the system did not meet their needs, with most users noting the following challenges: lack of clearly defined system objectives; poor data quality due to ambiguous case definitions and frequently unsubmitted reports (37% missing during January to June 2022); long delay between the occurrence of health events and the availability of corresponding data (≥2 weeks); and an antiquated and inflexible data management system. Overall, performance was deemed unsatisfactory on 11 of the 13 attributes.
conclusionsThis multinational sample of EpiNATO-2 users at all military levels reported that the system is currently not useful with respect to its stated objectives. Opportunities exist to improve the performance and usefulness of EpiNATO-2: improve case definitions, modernize data infrastructure, and regularly evaluate the surveillance system.
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.