ArticleBMC global and public health2026
High acceptability of a national platform for public health genomic data sharing and surveillance in Australia: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMC global and public health, 2026. 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
backgroundPathogen genomics has increasingly been integrated into infectious disease surveillance, outbreak detection, and response globally. However, formal evaluation of pathogen genomic surveillance systems has been a major gap. In Australia, the AusTrakka platform was established and deployed nationally to address barriers to genomic data sharing across jurisdictions, enhance interoperability and usability, and improve governance of public health genomic data. Here we present our evaluation of AusTrakka and examine how its utilisation and impact shifted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe utilised the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems to guide assessment of the AusTrakka platform. The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach consisting of a quantitative analysis of AusTrakka utilisation data throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and a qualitative component comprised key informant interviews and analysis of investigation reports produced by the AusTrakka National Analysis Team. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently between June 2020 and October 2022. Semi-structured individual and group interviews were held with key informants (n = 63) representing all jurisdictions across Australia and New Zealand. These included individuals representing public health laboratories and health departments, infectious disease physicians, genomic epidemiologists, and bioinformaticians.
resultsAusTrakka users reported that the platform had a very high degree of usefulness as a centralised platform to enable sharing sequence data across jurisdictions, facilitate multijurisdictional outbreak investigations, and clarify transmission chains. Acceptability was a key system that contributed to the usefulness of the platform, enhanced through collective design of data governance frameworks. Integration of epidemiological data with the pathogen genomic data was an ongoing challenge in data completeness.
conclusionsRobust evaluation of pathogen genomics surveillance systems is critical to identify contextual and system elements that impact the capacity of these systems to accomplish their objectives. Our findings demonstrate the importance of strong stakeholder engagement in developing data governance mechanisms for pathogen genomics in ultimately ensuring the capacity of surveillance systems to detect outbreaks and support public health utility, and reinforce the value of a nationally developed, purpose-built approach in Australia.
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.