ArticleBMC public health2025
Mapping the global public health intelligence landscape: a multiregional cross-sectional survey.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic health intelligence (PHI) allows for timely detection of public health threats. Exchange and close cooperation between PHI teams are crucial for early threat detection and standards harmonization, yet a comprehensive overview documenting their activities is lacking. We aimed to enhance mutual awareness and collaboration possibilities by mapping and characterizing PHI teams.
methodsWe developed and distributed an online survey through network sampling (June-November 2023) via regional Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (Africa CDC, ECDC, US CDC), the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI), the Robert Koch-Institute, and the World Health Organization (WHO). We identified and described PHI teams and their activities, including implementation of PHI processes, workforce, capacity building, priorities and perspectives on challenges and opportunities, by WHO regions and type of institution.
resultsWe identified 132 PHI teams from 87 countries in all regions, primarily in public health institutions (40%, 53/132) and ministries (27%, 35/132). Potential public health threats are monitored at national (39%, 51/132), international (20%, 26/132), and both levels (42%, 55/132). Most teams (89%, 114/128) integrate indicator-based and event-based surveillance. Teams focus mainly on human communicable diseases (95%, 125/132), healthcare-associated infections/antimicrobial resistance (66%, 87/132) and health in natural disasters (64%, 85/132). Nearly half of the teams (43%, 50/117) are not part of early event detection networks. All teams based in regional public health institutions (7/7) and United Nations (UN) institutions (10/10) are able to scale up their activities if needed. More than half of the teams (59%, 71/120) provide training activities on early detection. There is a strong interest in capacity building and networking.
conclusionPHI teams worldwide perform partially overlapping tasks, suggesting benefits from broader exchange. The interest in trainings and networking underscores the need for platforms supporting exchange, peer-to-peer cooperation and capacity building. International partner institutions are key in fostering global development of PHI.
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.