ReviewJournal of water and health2025
Integrating environmental and health data: insights and lessons from Australia's water monitoring systems.
Review in Journal of water and health, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integration of water monitoring and disease reporting systems is crucial for addressing the interconnected challenges of human, animal, and environmental health. Enteric pathogens introduced into water systems via faecal contamination pose persistent public health risks, particularly in recreational and drinking water sources. Using Australia as a case study, this review examines data collection protocols, surveillance efforts, and reporting guidelines across health and water sectors, identifying gaps and opportunities for improving collaboration nationally and internationally. We collated national and jurisdictional notifiable disease guidelines and notification forms to evaluate data collection and reporting. Drinking and recreational water guidelines and public-facing water surveillance programmes were also reviewed to evaluate monitoring practices, data collection, and accessibility. Findings revealed disparities in pathogen reporting between water and health sectors. Most monitoring guidelines relied on outdated data, failing to reflect contemporary risks and analytical advancements. Clinical disease reporting also lacked adequate waterborne pathogen metadata collection, limiting outbreak tracking. We identified opportunities to enhance data integration and cross-sector collaboration, potentially enabling clinicians, decision-makers, and the public to utilise data on recreational water environments and waterborne infections more effectively. This review underscores the need for greater coordination between water and health sectors, with broader implications for global health surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41026131What 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.