ArticleBMC public health2025
Tracking public health, utilization and outcomes during a pandemic using monitoring surveys.
Article in BMC public 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surveys can be a critical tool in monitoring public health during emergencies. Existing surveillance systems may provide timely reporting of cases and deaths associated with diseases. However, during COVID-19 they did not provide accurate information on the number of cases with virus-related symptoms, testing and treatment seeking. In fact, the surge of potentially infected individuals seeking diagnosis, testing and treatment represented a serious but largely unmeasured dimension of the crisis. This study aimed to evaluate the potential value of monitoring health, attitudinal, and behavioral dimensions that are not included in current U.S. disease surveillance systems during population health emergencies. Additionally, it seeks to demonstrate the feasibility of designing and implementing a low-cost, rapid-turnaround health and behavioral monitoring system when comparable data from existing surveillance systems are unavailable. From March through November 2020, we conducted national surveys with approximately 1,000 interviews each month with Census-balanced samples from a large national commercial panel. These surveys employed replicate national samples drawn from all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. A total of 9,200 interviews, averaging about 20 min in length, were completed over the course of the nine months of fielding. Nearly a quarter of respondents (22%) reported they had been sick for three days or longer since January with what might be COVID. Respondents were questioned about their symptoms, whether they had seen a doctor, had a confirmatory test for the COVID virus, and test results. Approximately one in ten respondents were currently experiencing COVID-like symptoms each month (95% CI: 10.7-12.0%). These numbers dwarf the 0.3% in April and 3.6% in November who had ever had a COVID positive test result. Moreover, 42% of these symptomatic adults sought medical care or testing, increasing strains on the health care system,. Although surveys may not be needed to estimate diagnosed cases, hospitalizations, or deaths, they can provide the missing data on symptomatic cases in the population, the proportion seeking medical care, ability to obtain a confirmatory test, and reasons for not seeking care or testing. This study demonstrates the ability of surveys to provide such information in a timely fashion, which could be replicated in other countries.
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.