Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Ghiya ND[original query] |
---|
Science in emergency response at CDC: Structure and functions
Iskander J , Rose DA , Ghiya ND . Am J Public Health 2017 107 S122-s125 Recent high-profile activations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) include responses to the West African Ebola and Zika virus epidemics. Within the EOC, emergency responses are organized according to the Incident Management System, which provides a standardized structure and chain of command, regardless of whether the EOC activation occurs in response to an outbreak, natural disaster, or other type of public health emergency. By embedding key scientific roles, such as the associate director for science, and functions within a Scientific Response Section, the current CDC emergency response structure ensures that both urgent and important science issues receive needed attention. Key functions during emergency responses include internal coordination of scientific work, data management, information dissemination, and scientific publication. We describe a case example involving the ongoing Zika virus response that demonstrates how the scientific response structure can be used to rapidly produce high-quality science needed to answer urgent public health questions and guide policy. Within the context of emergency response, longer-term priorities at CDC include both streamlining administrative requirements and funding mechanisms for scientific research. |
Analysis of three factors possibly influencing the outcome of a science review process
Araujo J , Ghiya ND , Calugar A , Popovic T . Account Res 2014 21 (4) 241-64 We analyzed a process for the annual selection of a Federal agency's best peer-reviewed, scientific papers with the goal to develop a relatively simple method that would use publicly available data to assess the presence of factors, other than scientific excellence and merit, in an award-making process that is to recognize scientific excellence and merit. Our specific goals were (a) to determine if journal, disease category, or major paper topics affected the scientific-review outcome by (b) developing design and analytic approaches to detect potential bias in the scientific review process. While indeed journal, disease category, and major paper topics were unrelated to winning, our methodology was sensitive enough to detect differences between the ranks of journals for winners and non-winners. |
Laboratory contributions to public health
Dowdle WR , Mayer LW , Steinberg KK , Ghiya ND , Popovic T . MMWR Suppl 2011 60 (4) 27-34 Alexander Langmuir, founder of the CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), was quoted in the early 1960s instructing incoming EIS officers that the only need for the laboratory in an outbreak investigation was to "prove their conclusions were right." Understandably, this was not well received by the CDC Laboratory Branch. However, Langmuir's point was not to denigrate the laboratory but to emphasize the power of an investigation based on a solid clinical case definition and established field epidemiologic principles. In truth, in 1960, when CDC assumed responsibility for publishing MMWR, the laboratory provided little added value in many investigations, except to confirm "what the etiologic agent wasn't." Existing diagnostic laboratory procedures for infectious and noninfectious diseases of public health importance were reasonably reliable but basic and laborious. For diagnosis of many diseases and conditions, no laboratory procedures existed. Since 1961, advances in molecular sciences, analytical chemistry, and technology have revolutionized the public health laboratory investigative capacity, capability, and specificity and have emphasized the importance of more independent laboratory research. The term "molecular epidemiology" is widely applied, and the number of diseases for which laboratory diagnoses are available today is substantially larger. This article describes the principles and practices of the state-of-the-art public health laboratory in 1961 and provides examples of scientific, technologic, and strategic advances since that time that characterize the still evolving public health laboratory of the 21st century. | | Browsing through MMWR, volume 10, week 1, January 13, 1961, provides insight into the public health laboratory of 1961 and the topics of most interest and visibility at that time. Subsequently, progress and contributions made by the public health laboratories are provided in a more detailed account by using several illnesses and conditions of public health importance as examples. They span both infectious and noninfectious arenas. Some were listed in the first MMWR summary, but some were not under consideration in 1961 or were yet to be discovered. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure