Fragmentation of influenza surveillance in Australia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33321/cdi.2002.26.2Keywords:
influenza, surveillance, surveillance programs, epidemic and pandemic preparednessAbstract
Monitoring of community influenza through sentinel practice networks is essential to track the onset and progress of epidemics. In 1999, the Influenza Pandemic Planning Committee of the Communicable Diseases Network Australia New Zealand (CDNANZ) recommended that a national surveillance system be established comprising both community-based and institutional surveillance. In 2001 however, influenza surveillance remains fragmented in Australia and mainly restricted to major cities. Methods of surveillance and reporting of influenza activity vary between States and even within States. Three disparate case definitions are in use for reporting influenza-like illnesses. Many sentinel sites do not have laboratory support for confirmation of influenza or identification of circulating strains. Dissemination of information is uncoordinated and without a standardised reporting format for collation at a national level. Prompt attention to these issues is important to ensure an adequate public health response to future influenza virus epidemics or a pandemic. Commun Dis Intell 2002;26:8-12.
Downloads
References
Influenza Pandemic Planning Committee of the Communicable Diseases Network Australia and New Zealand. A framework for an Australia Influenza Pandemic Plan. Commun Dis Intell Technical Report Series No 4. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care; 1999.
National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Surveillance data in CDI. Commun Dis Intell 2000;24:6-10.
Thursky K, Cordova S, Smith D, Kelly H. Evaluation of clinical case definitions for influenza surveillance: 1998-99 Victorian and Western Australian influenza seasons. Proceedings of the Communicable Diseases Control Conference, Canberra, Communicable Diseases, 2001;39.
Roche P, Spencer J, Merianos A, Hampson A. Annual report of the National Influenza Surveillance Scheme, 2000. Commun Dis Intell 2001;25:108-113.
Dedman D, Watson J. The use of thresholds to describe levels of influenza activity PHLS Micro Digest 1997;14:206-208.
Boivin G, Hardy I, Tellier G, Maziade J. Predicting influenza infections during epidemics with the use of a clinical case definition. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:1166-1169.
Monto A, Gravenstein S, Elliot M, Colopy M, Schweinle J. Clinical signs and symptoms predicting influenza infection. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:3243-3247.
Zambon M, Hays J, Webster A, Newman R, Keene O. Diagnosis of influenza in the community. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2116-2122.
Govaert M, Dinant G, Aretz K, Knottnerus J. The predictive value of influenza symptomatology in elderly people. Fam Pract 1998;15:16-22.
Carrat F, Tachet A, Rouzioux C, Housset B, Valleron A-J. Evaluation of clinical case definitions of influenza: detailed investigation of patients during the 1995-1996 epidemic in France. Clin Infect Dis 1999;28:283-90.
Thomson J, Lin M, Hampson A. Annual report of the National Influenza Surveillance Scheme, 1999. Commun Dis Intell 2000;24:145-152.
Carrat F, Flahault A, Boussard E, Farran N, Dangoumau L, Valleron A-J. Surveillance of influenza-like illness in France. The example of the 1995/1996 epidemic. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:32S-38S.
Klimov A, Simonsen L, Fukada K, Cox N. Surveillance and impact of influenza in the United States. Vaccine 1999;17:S42-S46.
Zambon M, Stockton J, Clewley J, Fleming D. Contribution of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus to community cases of influenza-like illness: an observational study. Lancet 2001;358:1410-16.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2002 Communicable Diseases Intelligence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
