MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3113188165 · doi:10.2196/19712

Effectiveness of a Mobile-Based Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance System (FluMob) Among Health Care Workers: Longitudinal Study

2020· article· en· W3113188165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
May O. Lwin, Jiahui Lu, Anita Sheldenkar, Chitra Panchapakesan, Yi-Roe Tan, Peiling Yap, Mark Chen, Vincent Chow, Koh Cheng Thoon, Chee Fu Yung, Li Wei Ang, Brenda Ang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineSore throatInfluenza-like illnessmHealthDisease surveillanceMedical emergencyHealth careFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Existing studies have suggested that internet-based participatory surveillance systems are a valid sentinel for influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance. However, there is limited scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of mobile-based ILI surveillance systems. Previous studies also adopted a passive surveillance approach and have not fully investigated the effectiveness of the systems and their determinants. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of a mobile-based surveillance system of ILI, termed FluMob, among health care workers using a targeted surveillance approach. Specifically, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the system for ILI surveillance pertaining to its participation engagement and surveillance power. In addition, we aimed to identify the factors that can moderate the effectiveness of the system. METHODS: The FluMob system was launched in two large hospitals in Singapore from April 2016 to March 2018. A total of 690 clinical and nonclinical hospital staff participated in the study for 18 months and were prompted via app notifications to submit a survey listing 18 acute respiratory symptoms (eg, fever, cough, sore throat) on a weekly basis. There was a period of study disruption due to maintenance of the system and the end of the participation incentive between May and July of 2017. RESULTS: On average, the individual submission rate was 41.4% (SD 24.3%), with a rate of 51.8% (SD 26.4%) before the study disruption and of 21.5% (SD 30.6%) after the disruption. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the adjusted individual submission rates were higher for participants who were older (<30 years, 31.4% vs 31-40 years, 40.2% [P<.001]; 41-50 years, 46.0% [P<.001]; >50 years, 39.9% [P=.01]), ethnic Chinese (Chinese, 44.4% vs non-Chinese, 34.7%; P<.001), and vaccinated against flu in the past year (vaccinated, 44.6% vs nonvaccinated, 34.4%; P<.001). In addition, the weekly ILI incidence was 1.07% on average. The Pearson correlation coefficient between ILI incidence estimated by FluMob and that reported by Singapore Ministry of Health was 0.04 (P=.75) with all data and was 0.38 (P=.006) including only data collected before the study disruption. Health care workers with higher risks of ILI and influenza such as women, non-Chinese, allied health staff, those who had children in their households, not vaccinated against influenza, and reported allergy demonstrated higher surveillance correlations. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile-based ILI surveillance systems among health care workers can be effective. However, proper operation of the mobile system without major disruptions is vital for the engagement of participants and the persistence of surveillance power. Moreover, the effectiveness of the mobile surveillance system can be moderated by participants' characteristics, which highlights the importance of targeted disease surveillance that can reduce the cost of recruitment and engagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→