Comparison of UK surveillance systems for monitoring COVID-19: Lessons for disease surveillance

Brainard, Julii, Lake, Iain ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4407-5357, Jones, Natalia ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-2985, Morbey, Roger A., Elliot, Alex J. and Hunter, Paul ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-6144 (2023) Comparison of UK surveillance systems for monitoring COVID-19: Lessons for disease surveillance. In: UNSPECIFIED.

[thumbnail of UKHSA_Brainard_ePoster] Microsoft PowerPoint (OpenXML) (UKHSA_Brainard_ePoster) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (396kB)

Abstract

Background During COVID-19 cases were tracked using multiple surveillance systems. Some systems were completely novel and others incorporated multiple data streams to estimate case incidence and/or prevalence. How well these different surveillance systems worked as epidemic indicators is unclear. This has implications for future disease surveillance and outbreak management. Methods Data from twelve surveillance systems used to monitor the COVID-19 in England were extracted (Jan20-Nov21). These were integrated as daily time-series and comparisons undertaken between the candidates and most timely (timely and comprehensive case count) and least-biased (and most comprehensive) COVID-19 epidemic indicators from household sampling. Findings Laboratory tested case counts had high correlation (> 90%) with household survey incidence. Incidence and/or prevalence suggested by a self-reporting digital App, attendances to emergency departments and hospital admissions tended to highly correlate with most timely/least biased estimates (correlation generally rho > 0.70). Google search phrases, wastewater concentrations, NHS111 web visits / telephone calls and consultations with general practitioners did not highly correlate (correlation rho < 0.70). Interpretation A suite of monitoring systems is useful. The household-survey system was a most comprehensive and least-biased epidemic monitor but not very timely. Data from laboratory testing, self-reporting digital App and attendances to emergency departments were comparatively useful, fairly accurate and timely epidemic trackers.

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Research Groups/Centres > Theme - ClimateUEA
Faculty of Science
UEA Research Groups: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Epidemiology and Public Health
Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Environmental Social Sciences
University of East Anglia Schools > Faculty of Science > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Faculty of Science > Research Centres > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Faculty of Social Sciences > Research Centres > Water Security Research Centre
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Population Health
Depositing User: LivePure Connector
Date Deposited: 22 Nov 2023 03:43
Last Modified: 22 Nov 2023 03:43
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/93672
DOI:

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item