Last data update: Oct 07, 2024. (Total: 47845 publications since 2009)
Records 1-2 (of 2 Records) |
Query Trace: Adamski Alys[original query] |
---|
Surveillance Indicators for Women's Preconception Care
Surveillance and Research Workgroup and Clinical Workgroup of the National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative , Adamski Alys , Bernstein Peter S , Boulet Sheree L , Chowdhury Farah M , D’Angelo Denise V , Coonrod Dean V , Frayne Daniel J , Kroelinger Charlan , Morgan Isabel A , Okoroh Ekwutosi M , Olson Christine K , Robbins Cheryl L , Verbiest Sarah . J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2020 29 (7) 910-918 Background: Limited surveillance of preconception care (PCC) impedes states' ability to monitor access and provision of quality PCC. In response, we describe PCC indicators and the evaluation process used to identify a set of PCC indicators for state use. Materials and Methods: The Surveillance and Research Workgroup and Clinical Workgroup of the National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative used a systematic process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize PCC indicators from nationwide public health surveillance systems that Maternal and Child Health (MCH) programs can use for state-level surveillance using the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). For each indicator, we assessed target population, prevalence, measurement simplicity, data availability, clinical utility, and whether it was related to the 10 prioritized preconception health indicators. We also assessed relevance to clinical recommendations, Healthy People (HP)2020 objectives, and the National Quality Forum measures. Lastly, we considered input from stakeholders and subject matter experts. Results: Eighty potential PCC indicators were initially identified. After conducting evaluations, obtaining stakeholder input, and consulting with subject matter experts, the list was narrowed to 30 PCC indicators for states to consider using in their MCH programs to inform the need for new strategies and monitor programmatic activities. PRAMS is the data source for 27 of the indicators, and BRFSS is the data source for three indicators. Conclusions: The identification and evaluation of population-based PCC indicators that are available at the state level increase opportunities for state MCH programs to document, monitor, and address PCC in their locales. |
Countries with delayed COVID-19 introduction - characteristics, drivers, gaps, and opportunities.
Li Z , Jones C , Ejigu GS , George N , Geller AL , Chang GC , Adamski A , Igboh LS , Merrill RD , Ricks P , Mirza SA , Lynch M . Global Health 2021 17 (1) 28 BACKGROUND: Three months after the first reported cases, COVID-19 had spread to nearly 90% of World Health Organization (WHO) member states and only 24 countries had not reported cases as of 30 March 2020. This analysis aimed to 1) assess characteristics, capability to detect and monitor COVID-19, and disease control measures in these 24 countries, 2) understand potential factors for the reported delayed COVID-19 introduction, and 3) identify gaps and opportunities for outbreak preparedness, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We collected and analyzed publicly available information on country characteristics, COVID-19 testing, influenza surveillance, border measures, and preparedness activities in these countries. We also assessed the association between the temporal spread of COVID-19 in all countries with reported cases with globalization indicator and geographic location. RESULTS: Temporal spreading of COVID-19 was strongly associated with countries' globalization indicator and geographic location. Most of the 24 countries with delayed COVID-19 introduction were LMICs; 88% were small island or landlocked developing countries. As of 30 March 2020, only 38% of these countries reported in-country COVID-19 testing capability, and 71% reported conducting influenza surveillance during the past year. All had implemented two or more border measures, (e.g., travel restrictions and border closures) and multiple preparedness activities (e.g., national preparedness plans and school closing). CONCLUSIONS: Limited testing capacity suggests that most of the 24 delayed countries may have lacked the capability to detect and identify cases early through sentinel and case-based surveillance. Low global connectedness, geographic isolation, and border measures were common among these countries and may have contributed to the delayed introduction of COVID-19 into these countries. This paper contributes to identifying opportunities for pandemic preparedness, such as increasing disease detection, surveillance, and international collaborations. As the global situation continues to evolve, it is essential for countries to improve and prioritize their capacities to rapidly prevent, detect, and respond, not only for COVID-19, but also for future outbreaks. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Oct 07, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure