For diseases or conditions included on the survey that were considered by the state to be reportable but under some other name or heading eg, Eastern equine encephalitis, reportable in the category of "Encephalitis, all types" , the disease or condition was coded by the authors as reportable for that state, although the specific term or name given on the survey was not the same as that used for reporting in the state or territory. Table 2 displays the state and territorial requirements for reporting of diseases and conditions recommended for national surveillance as of January 1, , and shows conditions and diseases reportable only by health care provider, those reportable by laboratory only, those reportable by both health care provider and laboratory, and those for which neither the health care provider nor laboratory are required to report.
Table 3 summarizes the reporting requirements for each of the diseases and conditions under national surveillance. Nineteen of the infectious diseases acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, botulism, cholera, diphtheria, gonorrhea, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, malaria, measles, pertussis, poliomyelitis [paralytic], human rabies, rubella, salmonella, shigella, syphilis, tetanus, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever were reportable in all of the states and territories that responded to this survey.
However, public health reporting requirements change often; readers should contact their public health departments for the most current information on reporting requirements. Several factors may affect whether a disease or condition on the list for national surveillance is reportable within a specific state or territory at any given time.
Time needed to enact a requirement, available resources, and competing public health priorities each affect a state's list of reportable diseases and conditions. Recent additions to the national list may only be reportable in fewer states if there has been insufficient time for the legislative and other processes needed within the state to make the disease or condition reportable by law, statute, or regulation. In addition, surveillance data may be difficult to capture, and the state or territory may not have the resources to implement reporting programs or systems for that disease or condition.
Also, not all diseases and conditions on the list for national surveillance have equal relevance to each state or territory, and reporting requirements for these diseases and conditions may be affected by regional or other factors. In the United States, the authority to require notification of cases of diseases resides in the respective state legislatures. Subsequent reporting of morbidity data by the state or territorial health department to CDC is voluntary.
Because of each state's autonomy with regard to morbidity reporting, the list of diseases and conditions that are reported varies by state. In addition to the variation among states for the conditions and diseases to be reported, the time frames for reporting, agencies receiving reports, persons required to report, and conditions under which reports are required also may differ among states.
Health care professionals are encouraged to determine the specific requirements in their area by contacting their state health department. Standardized case definitions for the diseases under national surveillance have been created to provide uniform criteria for reporting cases.
The CDC and CSTE also have initiated development of standardized case definitions for injury, chronic, environmental, occupational, and other health conditions. Historically in the United States, infectious disease surveillance has relied primarily on case reports from physicians and other health care professionals.
Although reporting by clinicians to public health authorities allows immediate public health response, including case investigation, contact prophylaxis, and outbreak control, other methods of surveillance are also necessary to meet the changing needs of public health assessment. Some of these other methods are sentinel surveillance and secondary analysis of hospital discharge or other administrative data sets, prevalence surveys, and vital records.
These methods may be used in combination to improve the comprehensiveness of data collection and to provide more complete information to assess local, state, or national goals for public health.
In addition, many states and territories provide newsletters and epidemiologic updates of surveillance data within their jurisdictions. Surveillance summaries for injury, 21 , 22 hazardous substances and emergency events, 23 infant mortality, 24 , 25 childhood lead poisonings, 26 low birth weight, 24 neural tube defects, 27 occupational asthma, 28 occupational hazards, 29 silicosis, 30 , 31 and smoking 28 , 32 , 33 illustrate that other mechanisms for surveillance and data collection must be flexible and appropriate to the specific public health issue.
Public health surveillance forms the basis for establishing public health priorities and monitoring trends. By describing the reporting requirements for various diseases and conditions, the CSTE survey provides information on state and national priorities for surveillance.
At the local level, knowledge of surveillance priorities can help ensure that diseases and conditions of public health concern are investigated, that appropriate public health action is taken, and that the disease or condition is reported to the appropriate public health authority. At the state level, surveillance data can be summarized and communicated to the private and public sectors to identify needed interventions and to assess programs.
Awareness of state-specific priorities and requirements for surveillance is essential, because authority for reporting resides in each state. At the national level, surveillance data are used to guide policy and to evaluate programs. Public health has expanded from its traditional base in infectious disease control, and as the scope of public health expands, the list of diseases and conditions of public health interest will vary between jurisdictions and over time.
In the future, greater emphasis should be placed on gathering data electronically from existing sources, including clinical laboratories and computerized medical records. Those concerned about public health will increasingly be required to make the best use of limited resources for surveillance to meet the challenges of a changing medical care system using new information technology.
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy Continue. Table 1. View Large Download. The completeness of AIDS case reporting, a multisite collaborative surveillance project. Am J Public Health ; 82 : —9. Reporting efficiency during a measles outbreak in New York City, Am J Public Health ; 83 : — Use of multiple reporting sources for perinatal hepatitis B surveillance and follow-up.
Assessment of surveillance for meningococcal disease in New York State, Am J Epidemiol ; : 78 — Evaluation of malaria surveillance using retrospective, laboratory-based active case detection in four southwestern states, Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 60 : — Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories.
Capture-recapture methods for assessing the completeness of case ascertainment when using multiple information sources. J Chronic Dis ; 27 : 25 — CMAJ ; : 36 —9.
CMAJ ; : — Evaluation of the completeness of reporting of invasive meningococcal disease. Can J Public Health ; 90 : —2. The efficiency of measles and pertussis notification in England and Wales. Int J Epidemiol ; 14 : — Macleod CA. Haemophilus influenzae : the efficiency of reporting invasive disease in England and Wales. Jenkinson D. Whooping cough: what proportion of cases is notified in an epidemic? Record-linkage between two anonymous databases for a capture-recapture estimation of underreporting of AIDS cases: France — Int J Epidemiol ; 29 : — Improving surveillance of infectious diseases in New South Wales.
Med J Aust ; : — The completeness of AIDS surveillance. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr ; 5 : — Estimating the extent of underreporting in AIDS surveillance.
AIDS ; 5 : — A controlled trial of disease surveillance strategies. Am J Prev Med ; 2 : — Comparison of an active and passive surveillance system of primary care providers for hepatitis, measles, rubella, and salmonellosis in Vermont.
Am J Public Health ; 73 : —7. The effect of underreporting on the apparent incidence and epidemiology of acute viral hepatitis. Am J Epidemiol ; : —9. Intensive hepatitis surveillance in Minnesota: methods and results.
Shigella surveillance in the United States, J Infect Dis ; : — A review of human salmonellosis. Magnitude of Salmonella infection in the United States. Rev Infect Dis ; 10 : — Estimated incidence and prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the United States, Sex Transm Dis ; 26 : — Physicians' attitudes toward venereal disease reporting.
Am J Public Health ; 82 : — Improving disease reporting in Los Angeles County: trial and results. The surveillance of communicable disease in Vermont: who reports? Public Health Rep ; : 95 —7. The underreporting of disease and physicians' knowledge of reporting requirements. Public Health Rep ; 99 : 31 —5. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources.
Ann Intern Med ; : — Brenner H. Use and limitations of the capture-recapture method in disease monitoring with two dependent sources. Epidemiology ; 6 : 42 —8. Effects of misdiagnoses on disease monitoring with capture-recapture methods.
Clin Epidemiol ; 49 : —7. Tuberculosis surveillance using death certificate data, New York City, Application of capture-recapture methods for disease monitoring: potential effects of imperfect record linkage. Methods Inf Med ; 33 : —6. Capture-recapture methods in epidemiology: methods and limitations. Epidemiol Rev ; 17 : — Recommendations for presentation and evaluation of capture-recapture estimates in epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol ; 52 : — Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents Abstract. Doyle , Timothy J. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Kathleen Glynn. Samuel L. Cite Cite Timothy J. Select Format Select format. Permissions Icon Permissions. Abstract Despite state and local laws requiring medical providers to report notifiable infectious diseases to public health authorities, reporting is believed to be incomplete.
AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. TABLE 1. Author s reference no. Time period. Supplemental data sources. Open in new tab. TABLE 2. Cochi et al. J Public Health Manag Pract. J Am Vener Dis Assoc. Am J Public Health. Int J Epidemiol. Am J Epidemiol. Public Health Rep. Wis Med J. Am J Prev Med. Am J Emerg Med. Clin Infect Dis. Emerg Infect Dis. Sex Transm Dis.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. Ann Epidemiol. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Am J Trop Med Hyg. J Chronic Dis. Can J Public Health. Med J Aust. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. J Infect Dis. Rev Infect Dis. To investigate, the authors designed a questionnaire and distributed it to physicians at two hospitals.
One hundred and sixty-nine questionnaires, which examined knowledge of reporting requirements and reasons for not complying with those requirements during , were returned a 49 percent response rate.
Most of the respondents knew that reporting is required, but their knowledge in specific areas, such as which diseases are reportable, varied greatly.
0コメント