Dataset Information

Developing a Data Integrated COVID-19 Tracking System for Decision-Making and Public Use.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic unveiled a strong need for advanced and informative surveillance tools. The Centre for Health Informatics (CHI) at the University of Calgary took action to develop a surveillance dashboard, which would facilitate the education of the public, and answer critical questions posed by local and national government.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to create an interactive method of surveillance, or a "COVID-19 Tracker" for Canadian use. The Tracker offers user-friendly graphics characterizing various aspects of the current pandemic (e.g. case count, testing, hospitalizations, and policy interventions).

Methods

Six publicly available data sources were used, and were selected based on the frequency of updates, accuracy and types of data, and data presentation. The datasets have different levels of granularity for different provinces, which limits the information that we are able to show. Additionally, some datasets have missing entries, for which the "last observation carried forward" method was used. The website was created and hosted online, with a backend server, which is updated on a daily basis. The Tracker development followed an iterative process, as new figures were added to meet the changing needs of policy-makers.

Results

The resulting Tracker is a dashboard that visualizes real-time data, along with policy interventions from various countries, via user-friendly graphs with a hover option that reveals detailed information. The interactive features allow the user to customize the figures by jurisdiction, country/region, and the type of data shown. Data is displayed at the national and provincial level, as well as by health regions.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 Tracker offers real-time, detailed, and interactive visualizations that have the potential to shape crucial decision-making and inform Albertans and Canadians of the current pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Krusina A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8111700 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health decision-making structures in England have transformed since the implementation of reforms in 2013, with responsibility for public health services and planning having shifted from the "health" boundary to local authority (LA; local government) control. This transformation may have interrupted flows of research evidence use in decision-making and introduced a new political element to public health decision-making. For generators of research evidence, understanding and responding to this new landscape and decision-makers' evidence needs is essential.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, drawing upon four databases and undertaking manual searching and citation tracking. Included studies were English-based, published in 2010 onwards, and were focused on public health decision-making, including the utilisation or underutilisation of research evidence use, in local (regional or sub-regional) areas. All studies presented empirical findings collected through primary research methods or through the reanalysis of existing primary data.ResultsFrom a total of 903 records, 23 papers from 21 studies were deemed to be eligible and were included for further data extraction. Three clear trends in evidence use were identified: (i) the primacy of local evidence, (ii) the important role of local experts in providing evidence and knowledge, and (iii) the high value placed on local evaluation evidence despite the varying methodological rigour. Barriers to the use of research evidence included issues around access and availability of applicable research evidence, and indications that the use of evidence could be perceived as a bureaucratic process. Two new factors resulting from reforms to public health structures were identified that potentially changed existing patterns of research evidence use and decision-making requirements: (i) greater emphasis among public health practitioners on the perceived uniqueness of LA areas and structures following devolution of public health into LAs and (ii) challenges introduced in responding to higher levels of local political accountability.ConclusionsThere is a need to better understand and respond to the evidence needs of decision-makers working in public health and to work more collaboratively in developing solutions to the underutilisation of research evidence in decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic affected healthcare systems worldwide. Predictive models developed by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and based on timely, centralized and standardized real world patient data could improve management of COVID-19 to achieve better clinical outcomes. The objectives of this manuscript are to describe the structure and technologies used to construct a COVID-19 Data Mart architecture and to present how a large hospital has tackled the challenge of supporting daily management of COVID-19 pandemic emergency, by creating a strong retrospective knowledge base, a real time environment and integrated information dashboard for daily practice and early identification of critical condition at patient level. This framework is also used as an informative, continuously enriched data lake, which is a base for several on-going predictive studies.MethodsThe information technology framework for clinical practice and research was described. It was developed using SAS Institute software analytics tool and SAS® Vyia® environment and Open-Source environment R ® and Python ® for fast prototyping and modeling. The included variables and the source extraction procedures were presented.ResultsThe Data Mart covers a retrospective cohort of 5528 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. People who died were older, had more comorbidities, reported more frequently dyspnea at onset, had higher d-dimer, C-reactive protein and urea nitrogen. The dashboard was developed to support the management of COVID-19 patients at three levels: hospital, single ward and individual care level.InterpretationThe COVID-19 Data Mart based on integration of a large collection of clinical data and an AI-based integrated framework has been developed, based on a set of automated procedures for data mining and retrieval, transformation and integration, and has been embedded in the clinical practice to help managing daily care. Benefits from the availability of a Data Mart include the opportunity to build predictive models with a machine learning approach to identify undescribed clinical phenotypes and to foster hospital networks. A real-time updated dashboard built from the Data Mart may represent a valid tool for a better knowledge of epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19, especially when multiple waves are observed, as well as for epidemic and pandemic events of the same nature (e. g. with critical clinical conditions leading to severe pulmonary inflammation). Therefore, we believe the approach presented in this paper may find several applications in comparable situations even at region or state levels. Finally, models predicting the course of future waves or new pandemics could largely benefit from network of DataMarts.