Does integration with national registers improve the data completeness of local COVID-19 contact tracing tools? A register-based study in Norway, May 2020 - September 2021.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 response in Norway, many municipalities used the Fiks contact tracing tool (FiksCT) to register positive individuals and follow-up contacts. This tool is based on DHIS2, an open source, web-based platform. In this study we examined if data completeness in FiksCT improved after integration with national registers between May 2020 and September 2021. METHODS: Data from municipalities using FiksCT was extracted from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19). We linked FiksCT data to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS), the National Population Register (FREG), and the Norwegian Vaccine Registry (SYSVAK) using unique identification numbers (ID). Completeness for each variable linked with a national register was calculated before and after integration with these registers. RESULTS: Of the 125 municipalities using FiksCT, 87 (69.6%) agreed to share and upload their data to Beredt C19. Data completeness for positive individuals improved after integration with national registers. After integration with FREG, the proportion of missing values decreased from 12.5 to 1.6% for ID, from 4.5 to 0.9% for sex, and from 1.2 to 0.4% for date of birth. Missing values for vaccine type decreased from 63.0 to 15.2% and 39.3-36.7% for first and second dose, respectively. In addition, direct reporting from FiksCT to MSIS increased the proportion of complete records in MSIS (on the selected variables) from 68.6% before to 77.0% after integration. CONCLUSION: The completeness of local contact tracing data can be improved by enabling integration with established national registers. In addition, providing the option to submit local data to the national registers could ease workload and reduce the need to collect duplicate data.

Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people.

Improving National Intelligence for Public Health Preparedness: a methodological approach to finding local multi-sector indicators for health security.

The COVID-19 epidemic is the latest evidence of critical gaps in our collective ability to monitor country-level preparedness for health emergencies. The global frameworks that exist to strengthen core public health capacities lack coverage of several preparedness domains and do not provide mechanisms to interface with local intelligence. We designed and piloted a process, in collaboration with three National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs) in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Pakistan, to identify potential preparedness indicators that exist in a myriad of frameworks and tools in varying local institutions. Following a desk-based systematic search and expert consultations, indicators were extracted from existing national and subnational health security-relevant frameworks and prioritised in a multi-stakeholder two-round Delphi process. Eighty-six indicators in Ethiopia, 87 indicators in Nigeria and 51 indicators in Pakistan were assessed to be valid, relevant and feasible. From these, 14-16 indicators were prioritised in each of the three countries for consideration in monitoring and evaluation tools. Priority indicators consistently included private sector metrics, subnational capacities, availability and capacity for electronic surveillance, measures of timeliness for routine reporting, data quality scores and data related to internally displaced persons and returnees. NPHIs play an increasingly central role in health security and must have access to data needed to identify and respond rapidly to public health threats. Collecting and collating local sources of information may prove essential to addressing gaps; it is a necessary step towards improving preparedness and strengthening international health regulations compliance.