This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Posted By Marion Kainer and Jeffrey Engel,
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Updated: Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Untitled Document
On June 2, 2015, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) was one of 150 organizations invited to the White House Forum on Antibiotic Resistance. Representing CSTE was Dr. Marion Kainer, Tennessee Department of Health epidemiologist, and chair of the CSTE Healthcare Associated Infections Subcommittee.
Combatting antibiotic resistant bacteria (CARB) became a presidential priority when the National Strategy for CARB (URL ref. 1) was released in September 2014, and in 2015 President Barack Obama requested $1.2 billion of new funding to address the strategy in his FY 2016 federal budget. In this proposed budget, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) portion is $264 million, a line item that CSTE heavily advocated for during our Capitol Hill visit on March 25, 2015. The National Action Plan for CARB (URL ref. 2) was released in March 2015, a few days after the CSTE Capitol Hill visit.
The new CDC funding would go primarily to the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP) in the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID). Importantly for CSTE members, a portion of the new funding would establish antibiotic resistance and antibiotic use monitoring capacities in state and local health departments. Channeled through the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant, this capacity building would include a coordinating epidemiologist position and strengthened surveillance with healthcare providers using both the National Health Safety Network and the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. The CSTE national office will benefit as well with expansion of the Applied Epidemiology Fellowship program to include workforce development in antibiotic resistance surveillance and antibiotic use monitoring.
To launch the CARB initiatives and encourage Congress to support the proposed funding, the Executive Office of the President hosted a White House forum. As part of the event, more than 150 food companies, retailers, and human and animal health stakeholders highlighted commitments to implement changes over the next five years to slow the emergence of resistant bacteria and prevent the spread of resistant infections.
The forum started in the Eisenhower Executive Office (EEO) where it was announced that President Obama just signed a presidential memorandum directing federal departments to buy meats and poultry that have been raised using responsible antibiotic-use policies. The forum was opened by Dr. John Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and included addresses by Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, Secretary for Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and CDC Director Tom Frieden. A-five member panel described commitments from their respective organizations; panelists included representatives from human health (acute care and long-term care), the animal health industry, Walmart, and Tyson foods. Walmart stated that in an effort to provide safe, affordable and sustainable food, they are asking meat producers, eggs suppliers and others to use antibiotics only for disease prevention or treatment and not for growth promotion. All five panelists stated that there was a very good business case for antibiotic stewardship. Dr. Jonathan Perlin (from the American Hospital Association and HCA) described the 5 “D”s of antimicrobial stewardship: right Diagnosis, Drug, Dose, Duration and appropriate De-escalation. A video of the opening panel can be found on the White House website.
The attendees were then split into the animal health sector that remained in the EEO and the human health sector group that relocated to the Cash Hall of the Treasury Building. We walked past the West Wing, cut through the North Side of the White House (through areas labeled “no tours beyond here”). The rest of the day was spent in four sessions (each with three panelists) moderated by CDC staff: hospitals (Dr. Arjun Srinivasan), outpatient use (Dr. Lauri Hicks), long term care (Dr. Nimalie Stone) and diagnostics (Dr. Jean Patel). Panelists included Kaiser Permanente and CVS. Both described their use of health information technology to support appropriate antimicrobial use, making it easy for providers to make the right choice; each performed audits and provided provider-specific feedback. They leveraged basic interoperability and infrastructure that was encouraged through meaningful use. Strengthening IT infrastructure, including interoperability, audit, and feedback as well as decision support, was a common theme. Other themes from the day included:
Optimal use of data
The need for meaningful and valid measures
The importance of transparency
The ongoing need for better surveillance
Financial incentives
Better tools (especially diagnostics that communicated results not only to the provider at the point of care, but also to the electronic health records)
A need for a “culture change” in healthcare and education and training, including meaningful involvement of patients, families and consumers
Multiple attendees were able to ask questions of the panelists and share perspectives. The human face of antimicrobial resistance was highlighted by the attendance and comments of family members of patients who suffered and/or died from the consequences of antimicrobial resistance.
The CARB initiative is broad in scope, engaging the animal and human health enterprise, the public and private sector, and interventions from prevention to new drug development. CSTE is committed to be the voice for prevention and improved surveillance of antibiotic resistance and use as it affects human health; always at the cutting edge of program and workforce development in applied epidemiology for public health practice.
Marion Kainer, MD, MPH, FRACP, FSHEA is director of the Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance Program at the Tennessee Department of Health. Jeffrey Engel, MD is executive director of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. For more information about antibiotic resistance, please visit CSTE’s Infectious Disease Steering Committee page.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Annie Tran,
Friday, June 26, 2015
Updated: Friday, June 26, 2015
Untitled Document
In June 2015, CSTE released a new resource to help orient chronic disease epidemiologists them to the changing demands of state public health.As was found in the Chronic Disease module of the 2013 Epidemiology Capacity Assessment (ECA), only 16 percent of chronic disease epidemiologists (CDEs) at state health departments had “some epidemiology coursework.” This number is a decrease from the 2009 ECA showing only 25 percent of practicing CDEs had previous epidemiology coursework. 2009 data also show nearly half of state health departments have substantial capacity 1 . With only a small fraction of existing CDEs trained in epidemiology and most health departments lacking chronic disease capacity, CSTE saw the need for additional training and resources to support chronic disease epidemiologists in state health departments.
In 2012, Dr. Sara Huston, then chair of the Chronic Disease/Maternal and Child Health/Oral Health Steering Committee, convened a group of impassioned CDEs to discuss the idea of a resource to guide CDEs through the first days of leading a CD program. This idea evolved over months of dialog, and what began as a collection of ti ps, tools, and leading practices became a more comprehensive manual to orient leading CDEs at state and local health departments, based loosely on the State Epidemiologist Orientation Manual. At the helm of this project was Dr. Renee Calanan, Chronic Disease Epidemiology Capacity Subcommittee chair and current chair of the Chronic Disease/Maternal and Child Health/Oral Health Steering Committee.
Under her direction, a small but dedicated workgroup drafted nine chapters (and several appendices) to form the Chronic Disease Epidemiologist Orientation Manual: A Resource for Applied Epidemiologist. This labor of love was published in June 2015 and contains chapters on understanding the role of a lead CDE, technical challenges faced by CDEs (data governance, data sources and indicators, data interpretation and dissemination, etc.), and organizational challenges that affect CDEs (integration, collaboration, system dynamics). In writing this manual, the authors intend for it to be a quick-start menu of resources for lead chronic disease epidemiologists working in state, territorial, tribal, or local health departments. It is not meant to be a comprehensive epidemiology manual.
We hope that this manual will encourage discussion and collaboration to address challenges and spur innovation in the delivery of data-driven chronic disease epidemiology services throughout the United States. As chronic disease becomes more prevalent, CDEs know all too well that the demands of being a lead CDE can be huge, but so can the reward. And this manual can help you get that.
Annie Tran, MPH is a former senior research analyst for CSTE. For more information on the Chronic Disease Epidemiology Capacity Subcommittee, please visit the CSTE Chronic Disease/Maternal and Child Health/Oral Health Steering Committee webpage. If you have questions or comments, please contact Nidal Kram, CSTE’s staff lead on chronic disease work.
1Substantial capacity defined as less than 50% capacity to execute epidemiologic functions. A self-assessed measure.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Jennifer Vahora and Stacey Hoferka,
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Updated: Thursday, June 11, 2015
In January 2015, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) received a measles case report, the initial case identified in what soon became the second-largest US measles outbreak, with 15 confirmed cases and many exposed contacts in suburban Cook County in 2015. IDPH had recently acquired Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) from Vanderbilt University, a free and secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases. REDCap is accessible through computers, tablets, and smartphones.
REDCap was being evaluated and tested for symptom monitoring in Ebola contacts, when the measles outbreak began. The robust and customizable functionality in REDCap allowed IDPH to rapidly mobilize the tool to support the local health department’s measles contact investigation. IDPH’s Applied Public Health Informatics Fellow, Jennifer Vahora, quickly modified the Ebola module she had built the month before in order to create a measles-specific questionnaire.
IDPH worked with the Medical Research Analytics and Informatics Alliance, a non-profit entity that supports the development and maintenance of the Public Health Node (PHN). The Public Health Node, as an agent of IDPH, connects directly to the Illinois Health Information Exchange and supports the technical receipt, aggregation and transformation of data sent to IDPH for the purpose of collecting Meaningful Use data from hospitals and providers, as well as the eXtensively Drug Resistant Organism (XDRO) registry.
Within 72 hours, the measles module was ready to be demonstrated and deployed by local health departments. The survey instrument was demonstrated to the Cook County and Chicago Departments of Public Health. Whitney Clegg and AJ Beron, two IDPH CDC/CSTE Applied Epidemiology Fellows, were trained to use REDCap and lead REDCap response activities at Cook County.
Within three days of the demonstration, Cook County deployed the REDCap survey instrument and offered REDCap to 33 (52%) of 63 low-risk contacts. After initial phone communication with contacts to explain the electronic monitoring option, REDCap was offered to contacts as an alternative to daily phone calls to report body temperature and the presence of symptoms. Seventeen contacts (52%) completed at least one survey. In a post-evaluation discussion, Cook County staff indicated that REDCap reduced staff time and effort necessary for monitoring low-risk contacts, made follow-up easier, and the layout enabled a quick review for detecting contacts who failed to report their symptoms daily. To enhance the tool for future use, Chicago and Cook County requested Spanish and Polish language translation, a vaccination history data collection tool, and the ability to manage multiple contacts within one household.
IDPH presented its experience with REDCap on a CSTE webinar on state innovations in active monitoring with the Georgia Department of Public Health. To date, IDPH has received inquiries from four state and local health departments and one international institute. IDPH is currently working to develop a protocol for the use of REDCap in outbreaks, modify the existing REDCap project to meet LHD needs, and expand use of REDCap for foodborne illness outbreaks, rabies animal testing, and sharing of lab testing information. While IDPH’s use of REDCap is evolving, it has the potential utility for additional public health surveillance activities and future collaborations with other public health jurisdictions.
Jennifer Vahora, MPH is an Applied Public Health Informatics fellow and Stacey Hoferka, MPH, MSIS is a surveillance and informatics epidemiologist at the Illinois Department of Public Health. For more information on Project SHINE fellowships, please visit www.shinefellows.org or contact Workforce Director Amanda Masters. For more information on measles monitoring, please visit the CSTE website.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Jessica Wurster, Ashley Conley, and Michael Heumann,
Friday, June 5, 2015
Updated: Friday, June 5, 2015
Dr. Redd gives the keynote address at the 2015 CSTE Disaster Epidemiology Workshop
CSTE, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Association for County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), and Safe States Alliance, recently hosted the 6th Annual National Disaster Epidemiology Workshop on May 13-14 in Atlanta, Georgia. The workshop convened epidemiologists from state, territorial, and local health departments across the country along with partners from CDC, other federal agencies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations. Over 70 people attended in person and over 50 people participated via live webinar. The theme of the workshop was “Stronger Together: Building Partnerships and Moving Disaster Epidemiology Forward.”
Dr. Stephen C. Redd, MD, RADM, Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at CDC, was the workshop’s keynote speaker. He discussed strategies to improve the response to public health emergencies, focusing on four emergencies: Bird Flu (2005-2009), H1N1 (2009-2010), Ebola (2014-2015), and the Haiti Earthquake (2010). Dr. Redd emphasized the importance of planning, emergency operation centers, adaptability, and risk communication when developing preparations for emergency responses.
Global Disaster Epidemiology Response to Ebola: Utilizing Innovative Surveillance Approaches for Monitoring and Tracking Cases, Contacts, and Travelers
State and Local Preparedness Efforts for Ebola Response
Challenges and Triumphs: Georgia’s Ebola Active Monitoring System
Monitoring of Individuals with Risk of Exposure to Ebola Virus Disease — United States, November 3, 2014 – March 8, 2015
Ebola Response in Rural Liberia
Surveillance During Disasters: Building Partnerships in the Use of Technology and Tools
Partnering to Enhance Electronic Death Registration for Disaster Analysis
Developing a Primer to Improve Public Health Surveillance during Disasters
Healthy Shelters – Shelter Surveillance Workgroup
Exploring the Role of Research in Moving DE Forward — Initiatives from NIEHS and NIOSH
NIH Disaster Research Response (DR2) Project: A Model for Overcoming the Challenges
Texas One Gulf
View from NIOSH on Disaster Responder Safety and Health: ERHMS and the Disaster Science Research Initiative
Strengthening Partnerships for Conducting Disaster Epidemiology
An Introduction to Poison Control in the 21st Century
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration; A response to a Disaster
Unaccompanied Children: Surge and Surveillance
Innovative Approaches and Partnerships for Disaster Response to Recent Events
The Use of CASPER in Two Communities Affected by the 2014 South Napa Earthquake
The Colorado Flood Disaster: The Impact on a Small Community
If you have any questions or would like more information about the CSTE Disaster Epidemiology Subcommittee, please contact Jessica Wurster.
Jessica Wurster, MPH is an Associate Research Analyst at the CSTE national office. Ashley Conley, MS, CPH, CHEP is chair of the Disaster Epidemiology Subcommittee and works as an epidemiologist at the city of Nashua Division of Public Health and Community Services in New Hampshire. Michael Heumann, MPH, MA is a CSTE consultant with HeumannHealth Consulting LLC. To see workshop presentations and join the subcommittee, visit CSTE’s Disaster Epidemiology page.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Chad McCoull,
Friday, May 29, 2015
Updated: Friday, May 29, 2015
Untitled Document
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Dhara Patel,
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Updated: Thursday, May 21, 2015
The Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR) is a multidisciplinary collaboration of eight national associations and three federal public health agencies whose goal is to improve methods at the local, state, and federal levels to detect, investigate, control, and prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. These CIFOR member organizations represent epidemiology, environmental health, public health laboratories, and regulatory agencies involved in foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak response. The food industry is represented in the CIFOR Industry Workgroup. CIFOR identifies barriers to rapid detection and response to foodborne disease outbreaks and develops projects that address these barriers. More information about CIFOR can be found at www.cifor.us.
The toolkit walks public health practitioners through a series of worksheets divided into 11 focus areas. The focus areas are designed to help jurisdictions identify recommendations from the guidelines that would be most useful for their jurisdiction. The toolkit covers the most critical elements of outbreak response, guiding users through a range of activities, including: describing current activities and procedures, prioritizing CIFOR guidelines recommendations to address needed improvements, and finally, making plans to implement the selected recommendations.
Figure 1: Outbreak Response Tracks and Focus Areas
Dhara Patel, MPH is a senior research analyst at CSTE, leading infectious disease, food safety, preparedness, and more. For more information, please contact Dhara Patel, MPH, at CSTE at (770) 458-3811 or dpatel@cste.org. Please join the CSTE Food Safety Subcommittee to join the discussion and receive related updates and news.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Katrina Hedberg,
Friday, May 15, 2015
Updated: Friday, May 8, 2015
Untitled Document
In early January 2015, a University of Oregon undergraduate student who lived off campus developed fever, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, and a non-blanching rash, but no symptoms of meningitis. Blood cultures yielded Neisseria meningitidis, serogroup B. Lane County Public Health staff identified close contacts and arranged for antimicrobial prophylaxis.
Without prompt antibiotic treatment, meningococcal disease is essentially 100 percent fatal. Those who survive may have negative long-term health effects (e.g. hearing loss, loss of limbs, etc). Household members of cases have an attack rate 500 to 1,000 times higher than the general population.1 Even with antibiotics, the fatality rate among cases reported in Oregon during 2005 to 2014 was 8.5 percent.
Meningococci come in 13 flavors, called “serogroups.” Of these, serogroups B, C, and Y each cause about one third of cases in the United States.2 Quadrivalent polysaccharide and conjugate vaccines are available US to prevent disease caused by serogroups A, C, Y and W135. Since October 2014, the FDA has licensed two new vaccines that protect against serogroup B: Bexsero® (a two-dose series) and Trumenba™ (three doses).
Meningococcal disease has declined steadily in Oregon since its 1996 peak. It has declined in the United States over the past 20 years, to recent annual incidences 0.3 to 0.5 cases per 100,000 people.
This is in spite of carriage rates of 5 to 10 percent in many communities.3
Seventeen days after the first U of O case, another student developed signs of meningococcemia, the diagnosis of which was confirmed by blood culture yielding N. meningitidis, serogroup B. Again, Lane County Public Health worked with U of O to identify close contacts and arranged prophylaxis. No epidemiologic link between the two ill students could be identified. The day after the second student fell ill, a third U of O undergrad developed malaise and possible fever; a few days later this student was admitted to hospital where serogroup B meningococcemia was confirmed. An epidemiological link was identified with one of the earlier ill students, and again close contacts were given antimicrobial prophylaxis.
Two-and-a-half weeks later, a fourth student developed severe meningococcemia and died. CDC recommends that broader community vaccination be considered when ≥3 cases of infection by a single meningococcal serogroup have occurred within a three-month period, without direct epidemiological links between the cases, and yielding an attack rate of >10 cases per 100,000 in the community at risk.4 The lack of direct links between cases implies that the infection has escaped the ring of antimicrobial prophylaxis and signals risk to the broader group: the cat has gotten out of the bag.
Vaccines were offered to students at the Student Health Service and then through local pharmacies. The U of O arranged for vaccinators and undertook a mass vaccination campaign using Trumenba™ at the campus basketball arena March 2-6. Through the Student Health Service, Lane County Public Health, pharmacies, and the mass vaccination effort on campus, approximately 8,800 students were immunized. Despite school being in session, news of the event ubiquitous on campus, mass vaccination clinics, and incentives of free t-shirts, store gift cards, and, yes, even pizza, more than 13,000 students remained unvaccinated.
Two more cases of serogroup B meningococcemia have since been confirmed. Vaccination efforts continue, and as of 28 March, 9,193 students had been immunized — 42 percent of the 22,000 target group, which is the entire undergraduate population at the University.
Collaborative Effort
The overall response to this outbreak required close collaboration between the University of Oregon, Lane County Department of Health and Human Services, the Oregon Public Health Division, CDC, as well as local pharmacies. The challenge now is to ensure that students complete their vaccination series. Thankfully, no additional cases of meningococcal disease have occurred in U of O students since early March.
References
1. Hoek MR, Christensen H, Hellenbrand W, Stefanoff P, Howitz M, Stuart JM. Effectiveness of vaccinating household contacts in addition to chemoprophylaxis after a case of meningococcal disease: a systematic review. Epidemiol Infect 2008;136:1441–7.
2. CDC. Prevention and control of meningococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR 2013;62(RR02):1– 22.
3. CDC. Meningococcal disease. In: Atkinson W, Wolfe S, Hamborsky J, eds. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. 12th ed. Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation, 2011. p. 193–204.
4. CDC. Evaluation and management of suspected outbreaks of meningococcal disease. MMWR 2013;62(RR02):25–7
Katrina Hedberg, MD, MPH is state epidemiologist and state health officer at the Oregon Public Health Division. For information on CSTE’s work in this domain, see the 2014 position statement 14-ID-06 on meningococcal disease and join an Infectious Disease subcommittee, such as Vaccine-Preventable Disease.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Jessica Wurster,
Friday, May 8, 2015
Updated: Friday, May 8, 2015
Untitled Document
With every natural or man-made disaster, there is a need for health data to make decisions, to allocate resources, and to provide situational awareness on the health of the affected community. Once integrated into the disaster management cycle, disaster epidemiology can provide the evidence base to inform and enhance response capability within the public health infrastructure. The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health (CDC/NCEH) has created a framework for the inclusion of disaster epidemiology in the disaster management cycle. The framework has recently been published in the American Journal of Public Health1 to assist practitioners at all levels in planning for and responding to emergencies.
Disaster epidemiology actions and the disaster management cycle
The framework includes methods such as rapid needs assessments, health surveillance, tracking and registries, and epidemiological investigations (such as risk factor analyses, health outcome studies and evaluations of interventions). These tools and methods can be practiced throughout the disaster management cycle and can provide actionable information for planners and decision-makers responsible for emergency preparedness, response and recovery. “Disaster epidemiology” (applied epidemiology for disaster settings) is being integrated into the public health response to disasters, and is providing the evidence base to inform and enhance response capability from the local to state and national levels of emergency response.
We invite you to read about this new framework, consider how your organization may integrate epidemiological methods into your disaster response efforts, and give us feedback if you have suggestions or tips on how to help partners collaborate on disaster epidemiology.
The Role of Applied Epidemiology Methods in the Disaster Management Cycle.
Josephine Malilay et al. Am J Public Health. 2014;
104:2092–2102. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302010
The article was written by Josephine Malilay, PhD, MPH, Michael Heumann, MPH, MA, Dennis Perrotta, PhD, Amy F. Wolkin, DrPH, MSPH, Amy H. Schnall, MPH, Michelle N. Podgornik, MPH, Miguel A. Cruz, MPH, Jennifer A. Horney, PhD, MPH, CPH, David Zane, MS, Rachel Roisman, MD, MPH, Joel R. Greenspan, MD, MPH, Doug Thoroughman, PhD, MS, Henry A. Anderson, MD, Eden V. Wells, MD, MPH, and Erin F. Simms, MPH.
If you have any questions or would like more information about the CSTE Disaster Epidemiology Subcommittee, please contact Jessica Wurster.
Jessica Wurster, MPH is an associate research analyst at the CSTE national office. To learn more, visit CSTE’s Disaster Epidemiology page.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Jessica Pittman,
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Updated: Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Untitled Document
Over the past year, CSTE has conducted an assessment on the scientific writing needs and trends for applied epidemiologists. Applied epidemiologists communicate complex public health information in writing with various audiences, including conference presentations and peer-reviewed manuscripts for journals. This work is done with varying degrees of preparation, mentoring, or resources. The CSTE Scientific Writing Workgroup as part of the Epidemiology Methods subcommittee facilitated data collection and the CSTE national office performed the data analysis. The Applied Epidemiology Scientific Writing Trends, Needs, and Recommendations, 2014 provides you with constructive recommendations to promote professional development focused on scientific writing skills.
Click here to read the Executive Summary and Full Report of the Applied Epidemiology Scientific Writing Trends, Needs, and Recommendations, 2014.
The results are grouped into four categories: scientific writing and publishing experience, barriers to scientific writing, facilitators to scientific writing, and desired tools and resources for scientific writing. Respondents almost exclusively had a master’s degree or higher level of education (94%), and 62% reported CSTE membership. Seventeen percent of respondents had worked in applied epidemiology less than two years, while 13% of respondents had worked in applied epidemiology for 20 or more years. More respondents worked at state health departments (64%) than local health departments (23%), with the remainder representing federal and tribal agencies and academia. A select few results are listed below:
Only 58% of respondents published work in the peer-reviewed literature as a job function.
State health department epidemiologists were nearly twice as likely to report that publishing their work was a requirement of a funding source as local health department epidemiologists.
Publishing among those with academic appointments (19% of the sample) was statistically more likely than among applied epidemiologists who did not have an academic appointment.
Just over half of the respondents reported having access to peer-reviewed literature (55%), oftentimes through academic appointments.
Organizational structure, resources, and competing demands provide a better understanding of perceived barriers to scientific writing with time to write being the most common barrier expressed by 68% of applied epidemiologists, though 28% report they receive some protected time for this task.
Facilitating factors that influence scientific writing in health departments included: supportive organizational culture; technical support including writers, editors and communication specialists; access to peer-reviewed literature; university partnerships and the option for electronic publishing.
Templates for general publications were requested by about half of participants.
Access to a mentoring network of experienced writers from state and local health departments was also similarly desired, and access to editors (46%) and access to technical writers (44%) were also suggested as helpful.
A journal club to encourage publishing and peer review was requested by two out of every five respondents.
Recommendations from the report encourage scientific writing among applied epidemiologists by: offering dedicated time to write, allowing epidemiologists to hold academic appointments, partnering with libraries or universities to ensure access to peer-reviewed literature, encouraging a supportive organizational culture to foster writing and publishing, and providing resources, such as manuscript templates, technical writers, editors, and journal clubs.
The results of the Applied Epidemiology Scientific Writing Trends, Needs, and Recommendations, 2014 will be presented by webinar on Thursday, May 21st at 1pm ET and will be subsequently archived on the CSTE Webinar Library. Register for the webinar at: https://cste.webex.com/cste/k2/j.php?MTID=t527e19346509124ae87f7253b281df5d
A roundtable discussion will be held at the 2015 CSTE Annual Conference on Monday, June 14, 2015 at 1pm. The roundtable will provide an opportunity to talk about what types of resources can be developed and prioritized to support applied epidemiologists’ scientific writing.
The Applied Epidemiology Scientific Writing Trends, Needs, and Recommendations, 2014 report was created as a result of the hard work of the Scientific Writing Workgroup: Michelle Housey, Sarah Marikos, Sarah Patrick, Jessica Pittman, Maayan Simckes, Mandy Stahre, Laura Tolmedi, and Jessica Wurster.
Jessica Pittman, MPH, CHES is Associate Research Analyst at the CSTE national office. To learn more about workforce capacity, read the recent Epidemiology Capacity Assessment reports for Chronic Disease, Maternal and Child Health, Environmental Health, as well as core needs in the epidemiology workforce.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!
Posted By Janet Hamilton,
Friday, April 24, 2015
Updated: Friday, April 24, 2015
Providers are sharing data more quickly with local health departments, and when disease is spreading quickly, time is important.
Electronic information sharing has been crucial to support our response to our current measles outbreak where we have identified four measles cases in two neighboring Florida counties so far. Historically, data shared from providers was mostly paper and usually took days to get into the hands of public health officials. Now the data is electronic and it is shared in almost real time. We are using our syndromic surveillance system to look for new measles cases that may not have already been reported; review our immunization registry to rapidly identify high priority contacts of the cases to target exclusions and offer disease preventing prophylactic treatment; and when suspected infections been identified, we are getting crucial confirmatory laboratory results back electronically right into our disease surveillance system within hours of results. The system is saving public health workers time and allowing us to do a better job protecting the community as we work to halt the spread of measles.
This shift (from paper to electronic information sharing) is due in large part to the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act (ARRA), which includes many measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, one of which is the "Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act.” The HITECH Act supports the concept of electronic health records - meaningful use [EHR-MU], an effort led by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). HITECH proposes the meaningful use of interoperable electronic health records throughout the United States healthcare delivery system as a critical national goal.
While bringing about national adoption for any federal program is a difficult endeavor, implementation of new EHR reporting is gaining widespread adoption. The EHR Incentive Program incentivizes eligible hospitals and other entities for meaningfully using health IT as well as reporting electronic data on three public health measures: (1) immunizations, (2) syndromic surveillance, and (3) reportable laboratory results. The program differentiates between eligible hospitals and eligible professionals, and the listing of stage 2 public health objectives for each are below.
Eligible hospitals reporting these three measures have gained momentum over the course of 2014. New EHR Incentive Program data show that 72 percent of stage-2 hospitals reported on all three public health measures.
Almost nine in 10 stage 2 hospitals were able to electronically report to their immunization registry
Three quarters of stage 2 hospitals reported syndromic surveillance data electronically to their local public health agency
More than eight in 10 stage 2 hospitals submitted laboratory results electronically to their local public health agency
The brief goes on to project that as more hospitals shift to stage 2 in coming years, it can be expected that electronic exchange between hospitals and public health agencies will likely increase. The ONC data brief also found that when reporting was optional instead of mandatory, fewer hospitals shared public health data with local health department officials: “While almost three-quarters of stage 2 hospitals reported, without exclusion, on all applicable public health measures, only 5% of stage 1 hospitals did the same.” As hospitals and public health departments progress to interoperability, everyone will get better data in a more timely way. Sharing of data in standardized electronic formats will improve population health, help contain dangerous outbreaks more quickly and result in better patient care coordination.
Proposed MU stage 3 objectives, the third and final phase of the MU incentive program, is currently out for public comment. CSTE will be preparing comments through the Surveillance and Informatics Steering Committee. Please join us to help craft our response as well as consider submitting responses directly from your health department.
Janet Hamilton, MPH serves as the Surveillance/Informatics Steering Committee Member-at-Large on the CSTE Executive Board and Surveillance and Surveillance Systems Manager at the Florida Department of Health. To learn more about surveillance and informatics, please join a subcommittee.
Are you a member with an important message to tell the CSTE community? Tell us about it!
Do you use social media? Stay tuned to CSTE on Facebook and Twitter for daily updates!