Measuring and Visualizing Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Inequality: An Informatics Approach Using Geographical Information Systems.

BACKGROUND: Health inequality measurements are vital in understanding disease patterns in identifying high-risk patients and implementing effective intervention programs to treat and manage sexually transmitted diseases. OBJECTIVES: To measure and identify inequalities among chlamydia and gonorrhea rates using Gini coefficient measurements and spatial visualization mapping from geographical information systems. Additionally, we seek to examine trends of disease rate distribution longitudinally over a ten-year period for an urbanized county. METHODS: Chlamydia and gonorrhea data from January 2005 to December 2014 were collected from the Indiana Network for Patient Care, a health information exchange system that gathers patient data from electronic health records. The Gini coefficient was used to calculate the magnitude of inequality in disease rates. Spatial visualization mapping and decile categorization of disease rates were conducted to identify locations where high and low rates of disease persisted and to visualize differences in inequality. A multiple comparisons ANOVA test was conducted to determine if Gini coefficient values were statistically different between townships and time periods during the study. RESULTS: Our analyses show that chlamydia and gonorrhea rates are not evenly distributed. Inequalities in disease rates existed for different areas of the county with higher disease rates occurring near the center of the county. Inequality in gonorrhea rates were higher than chlamydia rates. Disease rates were statistically different when geographical locations or townships were compared to each other (p < 0.0001) but not for different years or time periods (p = 0.5152). CONCLUSION: The ability to use Gini coefficients combined with spatial visualization techniques presented a valuable opportunity to analyze information from health information systems in investigating health inequalities. Knowledge from this study can benefit and improve health quality, delivery of services, and intervention programs while managing healthcare costs.

Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting: a comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department.

BACKGROUND: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. METHODS: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. RESULTS: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.

Variation in information needs and quality: implications for public health surveillance and biomedical informatics.

Understanding variation among users' information needs and the quality of information in an electronic system is important for informaticians to ensure data are fit-for-use in answering important questions in clinical and public health. To measure variation in satisfaction with currently reported data, as well as perceived importance and need with respect to completeness and timeliness, we surveyed epidemiologists and other public health professionals across multiple jurisdictions. We observed consensus for some data elements, such as county of residence, which respondents perceived as important and felt should always be reported. However information needs differed for many data elements, especially when comparing notifiable diseases such as chlamydia to seasonal (influenza) and chronic (diabetes) diseases. Given the trend towards greater volume and variety of data as inputs to surveillance systems, variation of information needs impacts system design and practice. Systems must be flexible and highly configurable to accommodate variation, and informaticians must measure and improve systems and business processes to accommodate for variation of both users and information.