ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
Evaluation of a Digital Tool to Collect COVID-19 Surveillance Data.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The timely collection and dissemination of public health surveillance data is crucial in infectious disease outbreak control. Traditional methods of collecting surveillance data through telephone interviews aimed at source and contact tracing can be vulnerable during an epidemic with rapidly increasing cases. To address this, we introduced a digital questionnaire that allowed for the timely retrieval of essential surveillance data. Methods: This study evaluates the response rate and timeliness of the collection of surveillance data from COVID-19-positive individuals using this method and compares the demographic characteristics of responders and non-responders. Results: The study involved 3240 individuals who tested positive on the COVID-19 laboratory test and were sent a digital questionnaire. Results show that a majority responded the same day (>80%), making it noninferior to conventional (telephonic) COVID-19 surveillance data collection in terms of speed. Conclusion: Our collection method yields responses from all genders, ages, and socioeconomic groups, including individuals with and without a history of COVID-19, and those tested by both the Public Health Service and third-party test sites. This allows personnel to focus on other priorities such as delivering health education and outbreak management. However, this method has limitations: it is ineffective for individuals without an email address, those facing language barriers, and cases where employers provided their own email addresses instead of the individual's email address. Future research into the quality of the answers provided in a digital questionnaire and its use in surveillance data collection for other infectious diseases is necessary.
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.