| Autor: |
Padget M; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Adam P; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Dorfmuller M; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Blondel C; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Campos-Matos I; COVID Vaccines and Epidemiology, UK Health Security Agency, United Kingdom., Fayad M; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Mateo-Urdiales A; Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy., Mesher D; International COVID Team, UK Health Security Agency, United Kingdom., Pistol A; National Institute of Public Health Bucharest, Romania.; University of Medicine 'Carol Davila' Bucharest, Romania., Rebolledo J; Department of epidemiology and infectious diseases, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium., Riccardo F; Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy., Riess M; Public Health Agency of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden., Rusu LC; National Institute of Public Health Bucharest, Romania., Che D; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France., Coignard B; Santé Publique France, Saint Maurice, France. |
| Abstrakt: |
International comparisons of COVID-19 incidence rates have helped gain insights into the characteristics of the disease, benchmark disease impact, shape public health measures and inform potential travel restrictions and border control measures. However, these comparisons may be biased by differences in COVID-19 surveillance systems and approaches to reporting in each country. To better understand these differences and their impact on incidence comparisons, we collected data on surveillance systems from six European countries: Belgium, England, France, Italy, Romania and Sweden. Data collected included: target testing populations, access to testing, case definitions, data entry and management and statistical approaches to incidence calculation. Average testing, incidence and contextual data were also collected. Data represented the surveillance systems as they were in mid-May 2021. Overall, important differences between surveillance systems were detected. Results showed wide variations in testing rates, access to free testing and the types of tests recorded in national databases, which may substantially limit incidence comparability. By systematically including testing information when comparing incidence rates, these comparisons may be greatly improved. New indicators incorporating testing or existing indicators such as death or hospitalisation will be important to improving international comparisons. |
