Interpreting specific and general respiratory indicators in syndromic surveillance

ObjectiveTo improve understanding of the relative burden of differentcausative respiratory pathogens on respiratory syndromic indicatorsmonitored using syndromic surveillance systems in England.IntroductionPublic Health England (PHE) uses syndromic surveillance systemsto monitor for seasonal increases in respiratory illness. Respiratoryillnesses create a considerable burden on health care services andtherefore identifying the timing and intensity of peaks of activity isimportant for public health decision-making. Furthermore, identifyingthe incidence of specific respiratory pathogens circulating in thecommunity is essential for targeting public health interventionse.g. vaccination. Syndromic surveillance can provide early warningof increases, but cannot explicitly identify the pathogens responsiblefor such increases.PHE uses a range of general and specific respiratory syndromicindicators in their syndromic surveillance systems, e.g. “allrespiratory disease”, “influenza-like illness”, “bronchitis” and“cough”. Previous research has shown that “influenza-like illness”is associated with influenza circulating in the community1whilst“cough” and “bronchitis” syndromic indicators in children under 5are associated with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)2, 3. However, therelative burden of other pathogens, e.g. rhinovirus and parainfluenzais less well understood. We have sought to further understand therelationship between specific pathogens and syndromic indicators andto improve estimates of disease burden. Therefore, we modelled theassociation between pathogen incidence, using laboratory reports andhealth care presentations, using syndromic data.MethodsWe used positive laboratory reports for the following pathogens as aproxy for community incidence in England: human metapneumovirus(HMPV), RSV, coronavirus, influenza strains, invasivehaemophilusinfluenzae, invasivestreptococcus pneumoniae, mycoplasmapneumoniae, parainfluenza and rhinovirus. Organisms were chosenthat were found to be important in previous work2and were availablefrom routine laboratory testing. Syndromic data included consultationswith family doctors (called General Practitioners or GPs), calls to anational telephone helpline “NHS 111” and attendances at emergencydepartments (EDs). Associations between laboratory reports andsyndromic data were examined over four winter seasons (weeks40 to 20), between 2011 and 2015. Multiple linear regression was usedto model correlations and to estimate the proportion of syndromicconsultations associated with specific pathogens. Finally, burdenestimates were used to infer the proportion of patients affected byspecific pathogens that would be diagnosed with different symptoms.ResultsInfluenza and RSV exhibited the greatest seasonal variation andwere responsible for the strongest associated burden on generalrespiratory infections. However, associations were found with theother pathogens and the burden ofstreptococcus pneumoniaewasimportant in adult age groups (25 years and over).The model estimates suggested that only a small proportion ofpatients with influenza receive a specific diagnosis that is coded toan “influenza-like illness” syndromic indicator, (6% for both GPin-hours consultations and for emergency department attendances),compared to a more general respiratory diagnosis. Also, patients withinfluenza calling NHS 111 were more likely to receive a diagnosisof fever or cough than cold/flu. Despite these findings, the specificsyndromic indicators remained more sensitive to changes in influenzaincidence than the general indicators.ConclusionsThe majority of patients affected by a seasonal respiratory pathogenare likely to receive a non-specific respiratory diagnosis. Therefore,estimates of community burden using more specific syndromicindicators such as “influenza-like illness” are likely to be a severeunderestimate. However, these specific indicators remain importantfor detecting changes in incidence and providing added intelligenceon likely causative pathogens.Specific syndromic indicators were associated with multiplepathogens and we were unable to identify indicators that were goodmarkers for pathogens other than influenza or RSV. However, futurework focusing on differences between ages and the relative levels ofa range of pathogens may be able to provide estimates for the mix ofpathogens present in the community in real-time

Framework for better living with HIV in England

1 Introduction and overview 1.1 The goal, purpose and scope of the framework This framework is the first of its kind in the UK. It describes the shared aspirations of a group of agencies for the lives of people diagnosed with HIV in England. The overarching goal of the framework is: All people with HIV are enabled to have the maximum level of health, well-being, quality of life and social integration. This is no less than the majority of people in the country expect for themselves. However, numerous obstacles prevent people with HIV from achieving this goal. These obstacles are not about having the virus but about how people with the virus are treated. This overarching goal is the situation we want to bring about. We detail this goal in seventeen subsidiary goals (what we want to happen). Each of these has a number of related aims and target groups (what we want individuals and groups to do to bring about the goal). The framework starts with the individual and seeks to bring about the conditions most favourable to individual self-determination and self-empowerment. The purpose of the framework is to: • Promote and protect the rights and well-being of all people with HIV in England. • Maximise the capacity of individuals and groups of people with HIV to care for, advocate and represent themselves effectively. • Improve and protect access to appropriate, effective and sufficient information, social support and social care services. • Minimise social, economic, governmental and judicial change detrimental to the rights and well-being of people with HIV. • Build consensus among those with a responsibility for promoting the well-being and rights of people with HIV. • Provide benchmarks against which the activities of a range of key stakeholders can be assessed, critiqued and coordinated. The framework does not describe all the activities of the organisations represented in the Framework Development Group (see section 1.4). Nor can these organisations undertake all the interventions necessary within the framework. Rather, the framework seeks to mobilise and coordinate the actions of a broad range of individuals and groups, from people with HIV themselves to government ministers. The framework primarily seeks to benefit people with diagnosed HIV infection. It is concerned with the health and well-being of those diagnosed with HIV and not those with undiagnosed HIV or those who might become infected (HIV prevention).As we are concerned with the lives of people with HIV after diagnosis, this framework is not focused on increasing HIV testing or HIV diagnosis nor does it attend to the needs of the broader population affected by HIV except where they relate to people with diagnosed HIV

Can syndromic surveillance help forecast winter hospital bed pressures in England?

BACKGROUND: Health care planners need to predict demand for hospital beds to avoid deterioration in health care. Seasonal demand can be affected by respiratory illnesses which in England are monitored using syndromic surveillance systems. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between syndromic data and daily emergency hospital admissions. METHODS: We compared the timing of peaks in syndromic respiratory indicators and emergency hospital admissions, between 2013 and 2018. Furthermore, we created forecasts for daily admissions and investigated their accuracy when real-time syndromic data were included. RESULTS: We found that syndromic indicators were sensitive to changes in the timing of peaks in seasonal disease, especially influenza. However, each year, peak demand for hospital beds occurred on either 29th or 30th December, irrespective of the timing of syndromic peaks. Most forecast models using syndromic indicators explained over 70% of the seasonal variation in admissions (adjusted R square value). Forecast errors were reduced when syndromic data were included. For example, peak admissions for December 2014 and 2017 were underestimated when syndromic data were not used in models. CONCLUSION: Due to the lack of variability in the timing of the highest seasonal peak in hospital admissions, syndromic surveillance data do not provide additional early warning of timing. However, during atypical seasons syndromic data did improve the accuracy of forecast intensity

Retrospective Observational Study of Atypical Winter Respiratory Illness Season Using Real-Time Syndromic Surveillance, England, 2014-15

During winter 2014–15, England experienced severe strains on acute health services. We investigated whether syndromic surveillance could contribute to understanding of the unusually high level of healthcare needs. We compared trends for several respiratory syndromic indicators from that winter to historical baselines. Cumulative and mean incidence rates were compared by winter and age group. All-age influenza-like illness was at expected levels; however, severe asthma and pneumonia levels were above those expected. Across several respiratory indicators, cumulative incidence rates during 2014–15 were similar to those of previous years, but higher for older persons; we saw increased rates of acute respiratory disease, including influenza like illness, severe asthma, and pneumonia, in the 65–74- and >75-year age groups. Age group–specific statistical algorithms may provide insights into the burden on health services and improve early warning in future winters

Syndromic surveillance: two decades experience of sustainable systems – its people not just data!

Syndromic surveillance is a form of surveillance that generates information for public health action by collecting, analysing and interpreting routine health-related data on symptoms and clinical signs reported by patients and clinicians rather than being based on microbiologically or clinically confirmed cases. In England, a suite of national real-time syndromic surveillance systems (SSS) have been developed over the last 20 years, utilising data from a variety of health care settings (a telehealth triage system, general practice and emergency departments). The real-time systems in England have been used for early detection (e.g. seasonal influenza), for situational awareness (e.g. describing the size and demographics of the impact of a heatwave) and for reassurance of lack of impact on population health of mass gatherings (e.g. the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games).We highlight the lessons learnt from running SSS, for nearly two decades, and propose questions and issues still to be addressed. We feel that syndromic surveillance is an example of the use of ‘big data’, but contend that the focus for sustainable and useful systems should be on the added value of such systems and the importance of people working together to maximise the value for the public health of syndromic surveillance services

Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study

Background: The potential of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to cause harm is a concern hindering widespread implementation. The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between HIVST and harm in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the largest randomised trial of HIVST in a high-income country to date. Methods: 10 111 cis and trans men who have sex with men (MSM) recruited online (geolocation social/sexual networking apps, social media), aged 16+, reporting previous anal intercourse and resident in England or Wales were first randomised 60/40 to baseline HIVST (baseline testing, BT) or not (no baseline testing, nBT) (randomisation A). BT participants reporting negative baseline test, sexual risk at 3 months and interest in further HIVST were randomised to three-monthly HIVST (repeat testing, RT) or not (no repeat testing, nRT) (randomisation B). All received an exit survey collecting data on harms (to relationships, well-being, false results or being pressured/persuaded to test). Nine participants reporting harm were interviewed in-depth about their experiences in an exploratory substudy; qualitative data were analysed narratively. Results Baseline: predominantly cis MSM, 90% white, 88% gay, 47% university educated and 7% current/former pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Final survey response rate was: nBT=26% (1056/4062), BT=45% (1674/3741), nRT=41% (471/1147), RT=50% (581/1161). Harms were rare and reported by 4% (n=138/3691) in exit surveys, with an additional two false positive results captured in other study surveys. 1% reported harm to relationships and to well-being in BT, nRT and RT combined. In all arms combined, being pressured or persuaded to test was reported by 1% (n=54/3678) and false positive results in 0.7% (n=34/4665). Qualitative analysis revealed harms arose from the kit itself (technological harms), the intervention (intervention harms) or from the social context of the participant (socially emergent harms). Intervention and socially emergent harms did not reduce HIVST acceptability, whereas technological harms did. Discussion: HIVST harms were rare but strategies to link individuals experiencing harms with psychosocial support should be considered for HIVST scale-up

Accessing and utilising gender-affirming healthcare in England and Wales: trans and non-binary people's accounts of navigating gender identity clinics.

BACKGROUND: Transgender, or trans, people experience a number of barriers to accessing gender-affirming healthcare and have a range of barriers and facilitators to primary care and specialist services, commonly citing discrimination and cisgenderism playing a central role in shaping accessibility. The pathway through primary care to specialist services is a particularly precarious time for trans people, and misinformation and poorly applied protocols can have a detrimental impact on wellbeing. METHOD: We recruited trans participants from an HIV Self-Testing Public Health Intervention (SELPHI) trial to interviews which explored contemporary gender-affirming service experiences, with an aim to examine the path from primary care services through to specialist gender services, in the UK. RESULTS: A narrative synthesis of vignettes and thematic analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty trans individuals. We summarise positive and negative accounts of care under three broad categories: Experiences with primary care physicians, referrals to gender identity clinics (GICs), and experiences at GICs. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss implications of this research in terms of how to improve best practice for trans people attempting to access gender-affirming healthcare in the UK. Here we highlight the importance of GP's access to knowledge around pathways and protocols and clinical practice which treats trans patients holistically

Demographic and socioeconomic patterns in healthcare-seeking behaviour for respiratory symptoms in England: a comparison with non-respiratory symptoms and between three healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE: This study will analyse respiratory contacts to three healthcare services that capture more of the community disease burden than acute data sources, such as hospitalisations. The objective is to explore associations between contacts to these services and the patient's age, gender and deprivation. Results will be compared between healthcare services, and with non-respiratory contacts to explore how contacts differ by service and illness. It is crucial to investigate the sociodemographic patterns in healthcare-seeking behaviour to enable targeted public health interventions. DESIGN: Ecological study. SETTING: Surveillance of respiratory contacts to three healthcare services in England: telehealth helpline (NHS111); general practitioner in-hours (GPIH); and general practitioner out of hours unscheduled care (GPOOH). PARTICIPANTS: 13 million respiratory contacts to NHS111, GPIH and GPOOH. OUTCOME MEASURES: Respiratory contacts to NHS111, GPIH and GPOOH, and non-respiratory contacts to NHS111 and GPOOH. RESULTS: More respiratory contacts were observed for females, with 1.59, 1.73, and 1.95 times the rate of contacts to NHS111, GPOOH and GPIH, respectively. When compared with 15-44 year olds, there were 37.32, 18.66 and 6.21 times the rate of respiratory contacts to NHS111, GPOOH and GPIH in children <1 year. There were 1.75 and 2.70 times the rate of respiratory contacts in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived to NHS111 and GPOOH. Elevated respiratory contacts were observed for males <5 years compared with females <5 years. Healthcare-seeking behaviours between respiratory and non-respiratory contacts were similar. CONCLUSION: When contacts to services that capture more of the disease burden are explored, the demographic patterns are similar to those described in the literature for acute systems. Comparable results were observed between respiratory and non-respiratory contacts suggesting that when a wider spectrum of disease is explored, sociodemographic factors may be the strongest influencers of healthcare-seeking behaviour

Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The potential of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to cause harm is a concern hindering widespread implementation. The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between HIVST and harm in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the largest randomised trial of HIVST in a high-income country to date. METHODS: 10 111 cis and trans men who have sex with men (MSM) recruited online (geolocation social/sexual networking apps, social media), aged 16+, reporting previous anal intercourse and resident in England or Wales were first randomised 60/40 to baseline HIVST (baseline testing, BT) or not (no baseline testing, nBT) (randomisation A). BT participants reporting negative baseline test, sexual risk at 3 months and interest in further HIVST were randomised to three-monthly HIVST (repeat testing, RT) or not (no repeat testing, nRT) (randomisation B). All received an exit survey collecting data on harms (to relationships, well-being, false results or being pressured/persuaded to test). Nine participants reporting harm were interviewed in-depth about their experiences in an exploratory substudy; qualitative data were analysed narratively. RESULTS: Baseline: predominantly cis MSM, 90% white, 88% gay, 47% university educated and 7% current/former pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Final survey response rate was: nBT=26% (1056/4062), BT=45% (1674/3741), nRT=41% (471/1147), RT=50% (581/1161).Harms were rare and reported by 4% (n=138/3691) in exit surveys, with an additional two false positive results captured in other study surveys. 1% reported harm to relationships and to well-being in BT, nRT and RT combined. In all arms combined, being pressured or persuaded to test was reported by 1% (n=54/3678) and false positive results in 0.7% (n=34/4665).Qualitative analysis revealed harms arose from the kit itself (technological harms), the intervention (intervention harms) or from the social context of the participant (socially emergent harms). Intervention and socially emergent harms did not reduce HIVST acceptability, whereas technological harms did. DISCUSSION: HIVST harms were rare but strategies to link individuals experiencing harms with psychosocial support should be considered for HIVST scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20312003