Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Date Submitted: Jan 16, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 21, 2019 - Mar 18, 2019
Date Accepted: Jul 19, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Differences in Regional Patterns of Influenza Activity Across Surveillance Systems in the United States: Comparative Evaluation
Background:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza-like illness (ILI) using information on patient visits to health care providers through the Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). As participation in this system is voluntary, the composition, coverage, and consistency of health care reports vary from state to state, leading to different measures of ILI activity between regions. The degree to which these measures reflect actual differences in influenza activity or systematic differences in the methods used to collect and aggregate the data is unclear.
Objective:
The objective of our study was to qualitatively and quantitatively compare national and region-specific ILI activity in the United States across 4 surveillance data sources—CDC ILINet, Flu Near You (FNY), athenahealth, and HealthTweets.org—to determine whether these data sources, commonly used as input in influenza modeling efforts, show geographical patterns that are similar to those observed in CDC ILINet’s data. We also compared the yearly percentage of FNY participants who sought health care for ILI symptoms across geographical areas.
Methods:
We compared the national and regional 2018-2019 ILI activity baselines, calculated using noninfluenza weeks from previous years, for each surveillance data source. We also compared measures of ILI activity across geographical areas during 3 influenza seasons, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. Geographical differences in weekly ILI activity within each data source were also assessed using relative mean differences and time series heatmaps. National and regional age-adjusted health care–seeking percentages were calculated for each influenza season by dividing the number of FNY participants who sought medical care for ILI symptoms by the total number of ILI reports within an influenza season. Pearson correlations were used to assess the association between the health care–seeking percentages and baselines for each surveillance data source.
Results:
We observed consistent differences in ILI activity across geographical areas for CDC ILINet and athenahealth data. ILI activity for FNY displayed little variation across geographical areas, whereas differences in ILI activity for HealthTweets.org were associated with the total number of tweets within a geographical area. The percentage of FNY participants who sought health care for ILI symptoms differed slightly across geographical areas, and these percentages were positively correlated with CDC ILINet and athenahealth baselines.
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest that differences in ILI activity across geographical areas as reported by a given surveillance system may not accurately reflect true differences in the prevalence of ILI. Instead, these differences may reflect systematic collection and aggregation biases that are particular to each system and consistent across influenza seasons. These findings are potentially relevant in the real-time analysis of the influenza season and in the definition of unbiased forecast models.
Citation
Per the author's request the PDF is not available.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.