|
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Emerging Concerns and Little or No Data |
|
|
|
|
View PDF
Approaches to Data Collection
| Because of the limited available funding for supplemental surveillance in low-prevalence areas, we need to consider multiple strategies to support the collection of supplemental surveillance data. Some of the ideas discussed during the Surveillance Coordinators meeting were episodic data collection, regional approaches, rapid behavioral assessments among high-risk groups or rapid assessments of clinical surveillance. Please indicate your 1st and 2nd priorities for the method of collecting supplemental data. |
After listing their priorities for supplemental surveillance data collection, respondents were asked to indicate their preferences for approaches to data collection. A list of 3 approaches was provided: (1) episodic data collection, (2) regional approaches, and (3) rapid assessments. These approaches are defined in Box 2 below.
| Box 2. Types of Approaches to Data Collection
Episodic data collection
In this approach, supplemental data would not be collected every year. For example, behavioral surveillance data might be collected only every 3rd year among men who have sex with men; or specimens for annual incidence estimation and data might be collected once every 3rd year.
Regional approaches
In this approach, neighboring states with similar data needs could share a funded position to coordinate data collection in those states.
Rapid behavioral assessments among high-risk groups or rapid assessments of clinical surveillance
In this approach, CDC could provide tools and technical assistance to conduct time-limited surveys to interview high-risk people at a well-attended gathering (for example, at Gay Pride events) or to conduct medical-record reviews to determine compliance with recommended standards of care.
|
Preferences for approaches to data collection differed according to the state’s surveillance priority. Most of the respondents who listed behavioral surveillance as a 1st or 2nd priority preferred rapid assessments and episodic data collection. The respondents who listed incidence estimation as a 1st or 2nd priority preferred regional and episodic approaches to data collection. Preferences for approaches to data collection are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Population groups of emerging concern (N = 21 States)
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Episodic |
|
Regional |
|
Rapid |
| |
data collection |
|
approaches |
|
assessments |
| Surveillance area |
No. |
% |
|
No. |
% |
|
No. |
% |
| Behavioral surveillance (N = 18) |
10 |
56 |
|
5 |
28 |
|
11 |
61 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Incidence estimation
(N = 10) |
5 |
50 |
|
5 |
5 |
|
2 |
20 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Clinical outcomes
(N = 9) |
5 |
56 |
|
3 |
33 |
|
4 |
44 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Targeted
specimen collection (N = 5) |
3 |
60 |
|
3 |
60 |
|
2 |
40 |
|
|
| Note. States could endorse more than one approach for each surveillance area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
