tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Eur J Public Health (2013) 23 (4): 653-658. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cks111 First published online: August 22, 2012
The 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in the French Armed Forces: evaluation of three surveillance systems
Kristel Gache1,
Aur?lie Mayet1,
Ghislain Manet1,
Caroline Ligier1,
Martine Piarroux2,
Nina Faure2,
Julie Trichereau1,
Catherine Verret1,
Christophe Decam2,
Herv? Chaudet2,
Christophe Rapp3,4,
Benjamin Queyriaux5,
Xavier Deparis2,4,
Ren? Migliani1,4 and
Jean-Baptiste Meynard1,4
+ Author Affiliations
1 Centre d'?pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Saint Mand?, France
2 Centre d'?pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Marseille, France
3 H?pital d?Instruction des arm?es B?gin, Saint Mand?, France
4 ?cole du Val-de-Gr?ce, Paris, France
5 Direction centrale du Service de sant? des arm?es, Paris, France
Correspondence: Jean-Baptiste Meynard, Centre d??pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Ilot B?gin, 69 avenue de Paris, 94 163 Saint Mand? cedex, France, tel: +33 (0)1 43 98 50 70, fax: +33 (0)1 43 98 54 33, e-mail: jb.meynard@wanadoo.fr
Abstract
Background: The French military forces had to modify their epidemiological surveillance systems at the time of the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. The aim of this article was to present an evaluation of the different systems used. Methods: Two influenza surveillance systems are usually used in the French forces: one permanent (Surveillance ?pid?miologique des arm?es or SEA) and one seasonal (Syst?me militaire d?observation de la grippe or SMOG). The pandemic required the implementation of a daily surveillance system (Surveillance quotidienne?SQ), which aimed to monitor disrupted activity owing to 2009 A(H1N1) influenza. The qualitative evaluation of these three systems during the period from September 2009 to February 2010 was performed using 11 criteria based on the list defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Atlanta. Results: Although it included only 30 sentinel units vs. 320 for the other systems, the SMOG system was the best-performing system in terms of relevance, feasibility, efficacy, quality of data, usefulness, acceptability, efficiency and cost/benefits/costs ratio. The SQ proved very expensive in terms of logistics. Conclusion: The SQ did not bring any significant advantage compared with the weekly surveillance schemes. In the eventuality of another similar episode, influenza surveillance could be significantly improved by using the SMOG system extended to more units for better geographical coverage.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/653.abstract
The 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic in the French Armed Forces: evaluation of three surveillance systems
Kristel Gache1,
Aur?lie Mayet1,
Ghislain Manet1,
Caroline Ligier1,
Martine Piarroux2,
Nina Faure2,
Julie Trichereau1,
Catherine Verret1,
Christophe Decam2,
Herv? Chaudet2,
Christophe Rapp3,4,
Benjamin Queyriaux5,
Xavier Deparis2,4,
Ren? Migliani1,4 and
Jean-Baptiste Meynard1,4
+ Author Affiliations
1 Centre d'?pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Saint Mand?, France
2 Centre d'?pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Marseille, France
3 H?pital d?Instruction des arm?es B?gin, Saint Mand?, France
4 ?cole du Val-de-Gr?ce, Paris, France
5 Direction centrale du Service de sant? des arm?es, Paris, France
Correspondence: Jean-Baptiste Meynard, Centre d??pid?miologie et de sant? publique des arm?es, Ilot B?gin, 69 avenue de Paris, 94 163 Saint Mand? cedex, France, tel: +33 (0)1 43 98 50 70, fax: +33 (0)1 43 98 54 33, e-mail: jb.meynard@wanadoo.fr
Abstract
Background: The French military forces had to modify their epidemiological surveillance systems at the time of the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. The aim of this article was to present an evaluation of the different systems used. Methods: Two influenza surveillance systems are usually used in the French forces: one permanent (Surveillance ?pid?miologique des arm?es or SEA) and one seasonal (Syst?me militaire d?observation de la grippe or SMOG). The pandemic required the implementation of a daily surveillance system (Surveillance quotidienne?SQ), which aimed to monitor disrupted activity owing to 2009 A(H1N1) influenza. The qualitative evaluation of these three systems during the period from September 2009 to February 2010 was performed using 11 criteria based on the list defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Atlanta. Results: Although it included only 30 sentinel units vs. 320 for the other systems, the SMOG system was the best-performing system in terms of relevance, feasibility, efficacy, quality of data, usefulness, acceptability, efficiency and cost/benefits/costs ratio. The SQ proved very expensive in terms of logistics. Conclusion: The SQ did not bring any significant advantage compared with the weekly surveillance schemes. In the eventuality of another similar episode, influenza surveillance could be significantly improved by using the SMOG system extended to more units for better geographical coverage.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/653.abstract