Register      Login
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > SH > SH04052
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 2(2)

Evaluating the utility of surveillance data to decision makers in Victoria, Australia

Jeanette Pope A C and Megan Counahan B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Strategic Policy and Research, Department for Victorian Communities, GPO Box 2392V, Melbourne, Vic. 3001, Australia.

B STI Surveillance, Department of Human Services, Level 17/120 Spencer Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: jeanette.pope@dvc.vic.gov.au

Sexual Health 2(2) 97-102 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH04052
Submitted: 23 November 2004  Accepted: 22 March 2005   Published: 16 June 2005

Abstract

Objective. Evaluating the utility of surveillance data to decision makers in Victoria, Australia. Methods. A survey of all sexually transmitted infection program directors in Victoria, Australia, was undertaken to examine readership and use of annual and quarterly reports. Results. One hundred and sixteen programs in 86 organisations were identified as undertaking sexually transmitted infection control activities in Victoria. Around 17% of the directors never read the reports and others reported not finding the information contained in them useful. While we found the information generated from the surveillance system has an important role in triggering action for epidemics and pervades more general decision making by improving the general knowledge of sexually transmitted infection trends, the indicators are not seen as useful by most key stakeholders. Conclusions. Significant improvements in the utility of the system could be made by changes to the data output and key suggestions made by the stakeholders are outlined.

Additional keywords: sexually transmitted/transmissible infections, policy.


References


[1] Department of Human Services Surveillance of notifiable infectious diseases in Victoria (1996–2004). Melbourne: Department of Human Services.

[2] Innes JE. Knowledge and public policy: the search for meaningful indicators. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers; 1994.

[3] Sandiford P,  Annett H,  Cibulskis R. What can information systems do for primary health care? An international perspective. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34(10): 1077–87.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[4] Remmington PL,  Smith MY,  Williamson DF,  Anda RF,  Gentry EM,  Hogelin GC. Design, characteristics, and usefulness of state-based behavioural risk factor surveillance: 1981–87. Public Health Rep 1988; 103 364–78.


[5] Remmington PL. Communicating epidemiologic information. In: Brownson RC, Petitti DB eds. Applied epidemiology: theory to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

[6] Figgs LW,  Bloom Y,  Dugbatey K,  Stanwyck CA,  Nelson DE,  Brownson RC. Uses of behavioural risk factor surveillance system data 1993–1997. Am J Public Health 2000; 90(5): 774–6.
| PubMed |

[7] Bloom Y,  Figgs LW,  Baker EA,  Dugbatey E,  Stanwyck CA,  Brownson RC. Data uses, benefits, and barriers for the behavioural risk factor surveillance system: a qualitative study of users. J Public Health Manag Pract 2000; 6(1): 78–86.
| PubMed |

[8] Paluk EC,  Williamson DF,  Milligan CD,  Frankish CJ. The use of population health and health promotion research by health regions in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health.  Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique 2001; 92(1): 19–23.
| PubMed |

[9] Banks C,  Eyeson-Annan M. Uses of NSW health survey programme data: a survey of users. NSW Public Health Bull 2001; 12(8): 214–20.


[10] Anderson R, Eyeson-Annan M, Banks C, Hall J. Assessing the economic benefits of population health surveys: the example of the NSW Health Survey. Paper presented at the AHES annual conference. Canberra, 27–28 September 2001.

[11] Pope J, Gruszin S. Chronic disease and associated risk factors information monitoring systems: the results of an audit of Australian data collections and policies and a review of the international experience. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care; 2002.

[12] Rein M,  Peattie L. Knowledge for policy. Soc Serv Rev 1981; 55(4): 525–43.


[13] Brownson RC. Epidemiology and health policy. In: Brownson RC, Petitti DB eds. Applied epidemiology: theory to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

[14] Weiss CHH. Research for policy’s sake: the enlightenment function of social research. Policy Anal 1997; 3 531–45.


[15] Porter T. Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1995.

[16] Buxton M,  Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1(1): 35–43.
| PubMed |

[17] Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2000.

[18] World Health Organisation. Protocol for the evaluation for epidemiological surveillance systems. Geneva: WHO; 1997.

[19] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50 (27 July) No. RR-13; 2001.

[20] Herman JL, Morris LL, Fitz-Gibbon CT. Evaluator’s handbook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1987.

[21] SPSS. SPSS 6.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc.; 1998.