Page 63 - Timeliness of Infectious Disease Notification & Response Systems - Corien Swaan

Timeliness of notification systems: a systematic literature review 61
Pubmed Search (n=457) Scopus Search (n=680)
Title and abstract screening (n=233)
Unique articles (n=143)
Full text analysis (n=50)
Result of literature search (n=46)
Articles from reference lists (n = 2)
Excluded on title and abstract (n=904)
Duplicates (n=90)
Excluded on full text (n=93)
Excluded reviews (n=4)
Articles selected total: n= 48
Figure 3. Flow diagram search process
There were 40 evaluation studies, of which 19 studies included a comparison of notification methods, and 8 intervention studies. Mandatory reporting is most common in notification systems (42 studies), next to voluntary reporting (3 studies) or a combination of both (3 studies). Most studies described reporting at local level (L1, 31 studies), followed by a combination of local and regional/ national level (L1-L2 and/or L1-L2-L3, 13 studies). Four studies report on region- al and/or national level (L2 and/or L2-L3). The studies analyzed conventional reporting methods (13 studies), electronic reporting (10), a combination of both (20), or mobile phone reporting (2). Three studies did not provide information on the reporting methodology, and were excluded in the analyses of timeliness related to reporting systems. Reporting delay on local level, including the delay between physician or laboratory to the local health department after laboratory confirmation (D3) was studied (43 studies) most often. Only 5 studies focused on delay towards regional or national level. An overview of delays reported in 48 articles is illustrated in the supporting information S1 table.
3