English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BackgroundTimely notification of infectious diseases is essential for effective disease control and needs regular evaluation.AimOur objective was to evaluate the effects that statutory adjustments in the Netherlands in 2008 and raising awareness during outbreaks had on notification timeliness.MethodsIn a retrospective analyses of routine surveillance data obtained between July 2003 and November 2017, delays between disease onset and laboratory confirmation (disease identification delay), between laboratory confirmation and notification to Municipal Health Services (notification delay) and between notification and reporting to the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (reporting delay) were analysed for 28 notifiable diseases. Delays before (period 1) and after the law change (periods 2 and 3) were compared with legal timeframes. We studied the effect of outbreak awareness in 10 outbreaks and the effect of specific guidance messages on disease identification delay for two diseases.ResultsWe included 144,066 notifications. Average notification delay decreased from 1.4 to 0.4 days across the three periods (six diseases; p &lt; 0.05), reporting delay decreased mainly in period 2 (from 0.5 to 0.1 days, six diseases; p &lt; 0.05). In 2016-2017, legal timeframes were met overall. Awareness resulted in decreased disease identification delay for three diseases: measles and rubella (outbreaks) and psittacosis (specific guidance messages).ConclusionsLegal adjustments decreased notification and reporting delays, increased awareness reduced identification delays. As disease identification delay dominates the notification chain, insight in patient, doctor and laboratory delay is necessary to further improve timeliness and monitor the impact of control measures during outbreaks.

Timeliness of infectious disease reporting, the Netherlands, 2003 to 2017: law change reduced reporting delay, disease identification delay is next