Quantification of the sensitivity of early detection surveillance. Issue 6 (14th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cameron, A. R.; Meyer, A.; Faverjon, C.; Mackenzie, C.
• Is Part Of: Transboundary and emerging diseases. Volume 67:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 2532
• Page End: 2543
• Publication Date: 2020-05-14
• Subjects: clinical surveillance -- early detection surveillance -- quantification -- risk‐based -- sensitivity -- syndromic surveillance; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13598
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1865-1674

Abstract

Abstract: Early detection surveillance is used for various purposes, including the early detection of non‐communicable diseases (e.g. cancer screening), of unusual increases of disease frequency (e.g. influenza or pertussis outbreaks), and the first occurrence of a disease in a previously free population. This latter purpose is particularly important due to the high consequences and cost of delayed detection of a disease moving to a new population. Quantifying the sensitivity of early detection surveillance allows important aspects of the performance of different systems, approaches and authorities to be evaluated, compared and improved. While quantitative evaluation of the sensitivity of other branches of surveillance has been available for many years, development has lagged in the area of early detection, arguably one of the most important purposes of surveillance. This paper, using mostly animal health examples, develops a simple approach to quantifying the sensitivity of early detection surveillance, in terms of population coverage, temporal coverage and detection sensitivity. This approach is extended to quantify the benefits of risk‐based approaches to early detection surveillance. Population‐based clinical surveillance (based on either farmers and their veterinarians, or patients and their local health services) provides the best combination of sensitivity, practicality and cost‐effectiveness. These systems can be significantly enhanced by removing disincentives to reporting, for instance by implementing effective strategies to improve farmer awareness and engagement with health services and addressing the challenges of well‐intentioned disease notification policies that inadvertently impose barriers to reporting.