Surveillance system integration: reporting the results of a global multicountry survey.

OBJECTIVES: Currently, there is no comprehensive picture of the global surveillance landscape. This survey examines the current state of surveillance systems, levels of integration, barriers and opportunities for the integration of surveillance systems at the country level, and the role of national public health institutes (NPHIs). STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey of NPHIs. METHODS: A web-based survey questionnaire was disseminated to 110 NPHIs in 95 countries between July and August 2022. Data were descriptively analysed, stratified by World Health Organization region, World Bank Income Group, and self-reported Integrated Disease Surveillance (IDS) maturity status. RESULTS: Sixty-five NPHIs responded. Systems exist to monitor notifiable diseases and vaccination coverage, but less so for private, pharmaceutical, and food safety sectors. While Ministries of Health usually lead surveillance, in many countries, NPHIs are also involved. Most countries report having partially developed IDS. Surveillance data are frequently inaccessible to the lead public health agency and seldomly integrated into a national public health surveillance system. Common challenges to establishing IDS include information technology system issues, financial constraints, data sharing and ownership limitations, workforce capacity gaps, and data availability. CONCLUSIONS: Public health surveillance systems across the globe, although built on similar principles, are at different levels of maturity but face similar developmental challenges. Leadership, ownership and governance, supporting legal mandates and regulations, as well as adherence to mandates, and enforcement of regulations are critical components of effective surveillance. In many countries, NPHIs play a significant role in integrated disease surveillance.

Scientific and political issues in evaluating new technology: the case of shock wave lithotripsy.

In recent years many methods of surgical care have become available for the treatment of renal stones, but it seems that no single method is the answer to all situations. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine exactly which method is preferable for which type of stone, it is generally conceded that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and effective technology for the treatment of urolithiasis in the proximal urinary tract. Even though the use of percutaneous lithotripsy has already become widespread, ESWL is being increasingly used in the U.S. today.