Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Apr 1;89(4):296-303. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.083154. Epub 2011 Feb 28.
To investigate the reliability of the public health event notification assessment process under the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR).
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.
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).
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.
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。
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。
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)。
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。