Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Public Health 1999 9(3):236-240; doi:10.1093/eurpub/9.3.236
© 1999 by European Journal of Public Health
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WEINBERG, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by WEINBERG, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

COMMENTARY

Establishing priorities for European collaboration in communicable disease surveillance

JULIUS WEINBERG, OLIVIER GRIMAUD, LISA NEWTON and ON BEHALF OF THE CHARTER GROUP

1 PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre London, UK

Correspondence: Dr J. Weinberg DM MRCP MFPHM, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5EQ, UK

Background: Several collaborations in communicable disease surveillance have developed between European Union member states. Involvement in these activities takes time and money. It is vital that collaborations are established in areas most likely to be beneficial. An exercise was undertaken to inform national surveillance centres and the European Commission as to priority areas for the development of collaborations. Methods: A modified Delphi exercise was undertaken amongst the heads of centres with responsibilities for surveillance at national level in the member states of the EU. Participants developed, agreed and ranked criteria for developing collaborations. A list of communicable diseases and syndromes was then ranked using a Likert-type scale. Three rounds were undertaken. Between rounds, scores and a ranking were fed back showing where participants had ranked items, compared to the overall mean and rank distribution. For the third round participants were asked to use a categorical scale, nominating six or ten high priority disease areas. Results: Response rates were 87.5% for round 1, 44% round 2 and 87% round 3. The low round 2 response rate appeared to be because respondents did not wish to alter their rankings. The six high priority areas were outbreaks of gastroenteritis/food poisoning, CID/other slow virus infections, serious imported diseases, legionellosis, antimicrobial resistance and tuberculosis. When participants gave ten high priority areas meningococcal disease, travel advice, vaccination/immunization and influenza were also included. The final lists were accepted at the meeting of participants. Conclusions: The process was successful in developing both a priority list and consensus.

Keywords: communicable disease, consensus method, Europe


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ScienceHome page
L. MacLehose, M. McKee, and J. Weinberg
Responding to the Challenge of Communicable Disease in Europe
Science, March 15, 2002; 295(5562): 2047 - 2050.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.