Timeliness of national notifiable diseases surveillance system in Korea: a cross-sectional study
Timeliness of national notifiable diseases surveillance system in Korea: a cross-sectional study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-9-93
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-31
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Cho, Sung-Il
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yoo, Hyo-Soon;Park, Ok;Cho, Sung-Il
背景：随着国际旅行的增加，跨地区传染病控制变得越来越重要。适当的监测系统功能对于在最早阶段防止传染病在全球范围内传播至关重要。有关亚洲传染病监测特点的报道有限。作者对2001-2006年韩国国家法定传染病监测系统对重大法定传染病的及时性进行了研究。根据每年报告病例100例的标准选择了5种疾病：伤寒、志贺氏菌病、腮腺炎、斑疹伤寒和肾综合征出血热。此外，登革热也被列为一种新出现的疾病，尽管其病例数量很少。比较了这些疾病在建议时限内报告的比例、中位时间延迟以及从症状开始到韩国疾病控制和预防中心(KCDC)报告日期之间每个监测步骤的累积延迟时间分布。结果：建议时限为1天的疾病组及时报告病例的比例低于7天(60%-70%比80%)。从发病到向KCDC通报的中位时间在6至20天之间。从发病到在地方一级登记的中位时间从2天到15天不等。时间延迟的分布显示，主要延迟出现在从发病到诊断的时间。不同疾病类别和监测步骤的及时性有差异。结论：从发病到诊断的时间通常是报告延迟的主要原因。这是促进公众教育和改进临床指南所必需的。应该鼓励医生快速报告，统一建议的报告时限可能会有所帮助。我们的研究还证明了对时间滞后分布的总体评估对于改进监测的具体疾病策略的实用性。
Background: With the increase of international travels, infectious disease control is gaining a greater importance across regional borders. Adequate surveillance system function is crucial to prevent a global spread of infectious disease at the earliest stage. There have been limited reports on the characteristics of infectious disease surveillance in Asia. The authors studied the timeliness of the Korean National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System with regard to major notifiable diseases from 2001 to 2006.Methods: Six notifiable infectious diseases reported relatively frequently were included in this study. Five diseases were selected by the criteria of reported cases > 100 per year: typhoid fever, shigellosis, mumps, scrub typhus, and hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome. In addition, dengue fever was also included to represent an emerging disease, despite its low number of cases. The diseases were compared for the proportion notified within the recommended time limits, median time lags, and for the cumulative distribution of time lags at each surveillance step between symptom onset and date of notification to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC).Results: The proportion of cases reported in time was lower for disease groups with a recommended time limit of 1 day compared with 7 days (60%-70% vs. > 80%). The median time from disease onset to notification to KCDC ranged between 6 and 20 days. The median time from onset to registration at the local level ranged between 2 and 15 days. Distribution of time lags showed that main delays arose in the time from onset to diagnosis. There were variations in timeliness by disease categories and surveillance steps.Conclusion: Time from disease onset to diagnosis generally contributed most to the delay in reporting. It is needed to promote public education and to improve clinical guidelines. Rapid reporting by doctors should be encouraged, and unification of recommended reporting time limit can be helpful. Our study also demonstrates the utility of the overall assessment of time-lag distributions for disease-specific strategies to improve surveillance.