JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Data-driven strategies are increasingly integrated into infectious disease control, enabling professionals to act in a timely and proactive manner, yet their implementation requires alignment with professionals’ needs. Little is known about professionals’ views on data-driven infectious disease control.

Objective:

This study aims to assess infectious disease control professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards working in a data-driven manner, as well as their needs, facilitators and barriers.

Methods:

Explorative online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with infectious disease control professionals of the public health services (PHS) in the Netherlands. FGDs were organized by profession, followed by a final mixed-group session, including medical doctors, nurses, infection preventionists, epidemiologists, policy advisors, project leaders, and managers working in infectious disease control. The topic guide was based on the Attitude-Social Influence-Efficacy model and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, complemented with questions on current practices within the public health services related to data-driven work. Framework and thematic analyses were performed.

Results:

Between September 2024 and January 2025, nine FGDs were conducted with 36 infectious disease control professionals. Five main themes emerged: 1) context of the work environment; 2) interpretation of data-driven work in the context of infectious disease control; 3) added value of data-driven work; 4) views on team’s participation; and 5) perspectives on development and implementation. While participants mentioned that some data-driven strategies were already implemented within the PHS, they observed that data are not often translated into action. Attitudes towards data-driven work varied across participants, especially regarding its definition, its application in daily practice, importance of data interpretation by professionals, its results, its implementation and its added value. Participation in DDW varied within teams and was influenced by role, interest, workload, time, knowledge, and willingness to change. Participants also identified various facilitators, barriers, and needs at individual, process and organizational level, such as a national approach of data-driven infectious disease control guided by a shared vision, defined role assignment and clear protocols on data registration.

Conclusions:

Infectious disease control professionals generally expressed a positive attitude towards data-driven work, but also identified several barriers and needs for future implementation. Especially the limited translation of data into action was currently seen as untapped potential. To support effective data-driven infectious disease control, we recommend investing in a supportive work environment that promotes a clear, shared definition of data-driven work, including defined roles and responsibilities. By doing so, infectious disease control professionals can shift from reactive to strategic, data-informed action and be better equipped for future public health threats.