Welcome to CDC Stacks | Did Advances in Global Surveillance and Notification Systems Make a Difference in the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic?–A Retrospective Analysis - 22617 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Did Advances in Global Surveillance and Notification Systems Make a Difference in the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic?–A Retrospective Analysis
Filetype[PDF - 687.77 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    23573217
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC3616047
  • Funding:
    5P01TP000307-01/TP/OPHPR CDC HHS/United States
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Description:
    Background

    The 2009 H1N1 outbreak provides an opportunity to identify strengths and weaknesses of disease surveillance and notification systems that have been implemented in the past decade.

    Methods

    Drawing on a systematic review of the scientific literature, official documents, websites, and news reports, we constructed a timeline differentiating three kinds of events: (1) the emergence and spread of the pH1N1 virus, (2) local health officials’ awareness and understanding of the outbreak, and (3) notifications about the events and their implications. We then conducted a “critical event” analysis of the surveillance process to ascertain when health officials became aware of the epidemiologic facts of the unfolding pandemic and whether advances in surveillance notification systems hastened detection.

    Results

    This analysis revealed three critical events. First, medical personnel identified pH1N1in California children because of an experimental surveillance program, leading to a novel viral strain being identified by CDC. Second, Mexican officials recognized that unconnected outbreaks represented a single phenomenon. Finally, the identification of a pH1N1 outbreak in a New York City high school was hastened by awareness of the emerging pandemic. Analysis of the timeline suggests that at best the global response could have been about one week earlier (which would not have stopped spread to other countries), and could have been much later.

    Conclusions

    This analysis shows that investments in global surveillance and notification systems made an important difference in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. In particular, enhanced laboratory capacity in the U.S. and Canada led to earlier detection and characterization of the 2009 H1N1. This includes enhanced capacity at the federal, state, and local levels in the U.S., as well as a trilateral agreement enabling collaboration among U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In addition, improved global notification systems contributed by helping health officials understand the relevance and importance of their own information.