Article Text

PDF
Papers
Evaluation of methods for measuring coverage and representativeness of an early-warning disease surveillance system
  1. E. R. Ely, BSc, PhD1,
  2. R. E. Nicholson, BSc, MSc2,
  3. L. C. Snow, BSc, MSc, PhD1,
  4. B. W. Strugnell, BVM&S Cert PM MRCVS3,
  5. S. M. Williamson, BVetMed, PhD, MRCVS4,
  6. A. S. Milnes, BVMS, PhD, MRCVS5,
  7. E. N. Watson, BVSc, NDA, MSc, MRCVS1 and
  8. L. J. Hoinville, BSc, BVSc, MSc, PhD, DipECVPH, MRCVS1
  1. 1Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Group
  2. 2Data Systems Group
    Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) Weybridge, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB, UK
  3. 3ALVLA Thirsk, West House, Station Road, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, YO7 1PZ, UK
  4. 4AHVLA Bury St Edmunds, Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 2RX, UK
  5. 5AHVLA Langford, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DX, UK
  1. E-mail for correspondence: linda.hoinville{at}ahvla.gsi.gov.uk

Abstract

Early-warning surveillance provides an essential component of the evidence required to protect animal health. Assessing the proportion of the population included in surveillance systems (coverage) provides a measure of the effectiveness of early-warning surveillance, and contributes to ensuring that these systems are efficient. This paper describes an investigation of methods used for assessing the coverage and representativeness of the ‘FarmFile’ early-warning surveillance system. This system uses information collected with samples submitted to diagnostic laboratories by private veterinary practitioners in England and Wales. Available data on pig holdings and veterinary practices in four English counties, selected to represent a range of diverse population characteristics, were supplemented using surveys of veterinary practices. Coverage assessments were based on submissions made to FarmFile in 2009. The proportion of holdings covered varied from 5–62 per cent in Devon and Cumbria, and 16–97 per cent in Norfolk and East Riding of Yorkshire. The results suggest that while the proportion of individual pigs covered by the current early-warning surveillance system is high, small and breeding-only holdings in some regions may be poorly covered. Coverage assessments vary depending on the methods used for their assessment, and multiple assessment methods can provide a ‘range’ within which coverage lies.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.