JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Participatory surveillance systems augment traditional surveillance systems through bidirectional community engagement. The digital platform evolution has enabled the expansion of participatory surveillance systems globally for detection of health events impacting people, animals, plants and the environment; in other words, across the entire One Health spectrum.

Objective:

This landscape has been conducted to identify and provide descriptive information regarding system focus, geography, users, technology, information shared, and perceived impact of ongoing participatory surveillance systems across the One Health spectrum.

Methods:

The landscape began with a systematic literature review to identify potential ongoing participatory surveillance systems. A survey was sent to collect standardized data from systems identified in the literature review and through direct outreach to stakeholders, experts and professional organizations. Descriptive analyses of survey and literature review results were conducted across the programs.

Results:

The landscape identified 60 ongoing single and multisector participatory surveillance systems spanning five continents. Of these, 29 (48.3%) include data on human health, 26 (43.3%) include data on environmental health, and 24 (40.0%) include data on animal health. Sixteen (26.7%) systems were multisectoral: 9 of which collect animal/environmental health data; 3 collect human/animal/environment data; 2 collect human/environment data; and, 2 collect human and animal health. Thirty-one systems (51.7%) are designed to cover a national scale compared to those with a subnational (n=19, 31.7%) or multinational (n=10, 16.7%) focus. All systems used some form of digital technology. Email or website (n=40, 66.7%) and smart phone (n=29, 48.3%) are the most common technologies used, with some using both. Systems had capabilities to download geolocation (n=31, 51.7%), photographs (n=29, 48.3%), videos (n=6, 10.0%), and incorporate lab data or involving collecting samples (n=15, 25%). In sharing information back with users, most utilized visualization such as maps (n=43, 71.7%), training/educational materials (n=37, 61.7%), newsletters/blogs/emails (n=34, 56.7%), disease prevention information (n=32, 53.3%). Out of the 46 systems responding to perceived impacts from their systems in the survey, 36 (78.2%) noted “Improved community knowledge and understanding” and 31 (67.4%), “Earlier detection.”

Conclusions:

The landscape demonstrated the breadth of applicability of participatory surveillance around the world to collect data from community members and trained volunteers to inform detection of events from invasive plant pests to weekly influenza symptoms. Acknowledging the importance of bidirectionality of information, these systems simultaneously share findings back with the users. Such directly engaged community detection systems capture events early and provide opportunities to stop outbreaks quickly.