Suppr超能文献

是否应向世界卫生组织通报这一事件?国际卫生条例通报评估过程的可靠性。

Should this event be notified to the World Health Organization? Reliability of the international health regulations notification assessment process.

机构信息

Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.

出版信息

Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Apr 1;89(4):296-303. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.083154. Epub 2011 Feb 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the reliability of the public health event notification assessment process under the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR).

METHODS

In 2009, 193 National IHR Focal Points (NFPs) were invited to use the decision instrument in Annex 2 of the IHR to determine whether 10 fictitious public health events should be notified to WHO. Each event's notifiability was assessed independently by an expert panel. The degree of consensus among NFPs and of concordance between NFPs and the expert panel was considered high when more than 70% agreed on a response.

FINDINGS

Overall, 74% of NFPs responded. The median degree of consensus among NFPs on notification decisions was 78%. It was high for the six events considered notifiable by the majority (median: 80%; range: 76-91) but low for the remaining four (median: 55%; range: 54-60). The degree of concordance between NFPs and the expert panel was high for the five events deemed notifiable by the panel (median: 82%; range: 76-91) but low (median: 51%; range: 42-60) for those not considered notifiable. The NFPs identified notifiable events with greater sensitivity than specificity (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When used by NFPs, the notification assessment process in Annex 2 of the IHR was sensitive in identifying public health events that were considered notifiable by an expert panel, but only moderately specific. The reliability of the assessments could be increased by expanding guidance on the use of the decision instrument and by including more specific criteria for assessing events and clearer definitions of terms.

摘要

目的

评估《国际卫生条例(2005)》(IHR)下公共卫生事件通报评估程序的可靠性。

方法

2009 年,邀请 193 名国家 IHR 联络点(NFPs)使用 IHR 附件 2 中的决策工具,判断 10 个虚构的公共卫生事件是否应通报给世界卫生组织(WHO)。每个事件的通报可操作性均由一个专家小组独立评估。当超过 70%的人对某一回应达成一致时,就认为 NFPs 之间的一致性和 NFPs 与专家小组之间的一致性程度较高。

结果

总体而言,74%的 NFPs 做出了回应。NFPs 在通报决策上的共识中位数为 78%。对于大多数被认为应通报的六个事件(中位数:80%;范围:76-91),一致性程度较高,但对于其余四个事件(中位数:55%;范围:54-60)则较低。对于被专家小组认为应通报的五个事件,NFPs 与专家小组之间的一致性程度较高(中位数:82%;范围:76-91),而对于那些被认为不应通报的事件,则较低(中位数:51%;范围:42-60)。NFPs 确定的应通报事件的敏感性大于特异性(P<0.001)。

结论

当 NFPs 使用时,IHR 附件 2 中的通报评估程序在识别被专家小组认为应通报的公共卫生事件方面具有较高的敏感性,但特异性仅为中等水平。通过扩大对决策工具使用的指导,并纳入更具体的事件评估标准和更明确的术语定义,可以提高评估的可靠性。

相似文献

3
[Surveillance under the International Health Regulations (2005)].[《国际卫生条例(2005)》下的监测]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2009 Feb;52(2):168-75. doi: 10.1007/s00103-009-0758-z.
5
The International Health Regulations and beyond.《国际卫生条例》及其他相关内容。
Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Oct;4(10):606-7. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01142-9.
9
A new public health world order.一个新的全球公共卫生秩序。
Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Aug;4(8):475. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01081-3.

引用本文的文献

2
National focal points and implementation of the International Health Regulations.国家归口单位与《国际卫生条例》的实施
Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jul 1;99(7):536-538. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.270116. Epub 2021 May 4.

本文引用的文献

5
Global public health security.全球公共卫生安全。
Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Oct;13(10):1447-52. doi: 10.3201/eid1310.070732.
8
Planning for epidemics--the lessons of SARS.应对流行病的规划——非典的教训
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2332-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048082.
10
Foot and mouth disease in human beings.
Lancet. 2001 May 12;357(9267):1463. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04670-5.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验