Communicating Epidemiologic Evidence Effectively to Companies Involved in Enteric Disease Outbreaks

Monday, June 5, 2017: 11:24 AM
420A, Boise Centre
Laura Burnworth , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Michael Jhung , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Matthew Wise , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Ian Williams , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA

BACKGROUND: Clear and effective communication is essential for information sharing and outbreak resolution. During enteric disease outbreak investigations, public health and regulatory officials collaborate to engage companies whose products are suspected to be associated with illness. The goal of this engagement varies from sharing epidemiologic findings to discussing proactive steps to protect public health. Engagement with companies during outbreaks is challenging because the consequences can be substantial for both public health and the company. Levels of understanding of epidemiology, enteric pathogens, and outbreak investigation methods varies among company representatives, and engagement often occurs with little to no warning.

METHODS: We solicited input regarding the current process from companies involved in previous outbreaks. First, we gathered informal feedback during a meeting with representatives of >20 companies. Second, we created a communications script for a mock outbreak investigation and tested it with a large U.S. company, whose representatives provided feedback and ideas for improvement. We identified themes in the feedback from the above-described meeting and mock outbreak investigation, enabling us to identify potential improvements.

RESULTS: Feedback indicated the importance of sharing information ahead of a scheduled company call, including a summary of the epidemiologic data in writing, a map of cases, and information about ill people. Feedback also revealed the need to explicitly identify the reason for the call at the outset, to specify that the problem is serious, and to review the epidemiologic information in detail. Using this feedback, we developed communications tools for use with companies, including a standard script interpreting the epidemiologic data, plain language factsheets describing the multistate outbreak investigation process, descriptions of common enteric pathogens, and a template slide deck summarizing epidemiologic data. As part of the improved process, the factsheets and an outbreak-specific slide deck are shared with companies before calls. Since development, this process has been used effectively during three investigations.

CONCLUSIONS: Communicating complex epidemiologic concepts and data effectively to any audience is challenging, and even more so for companies whose product is suspected as the source of an outbreak. By creating standard steps and comprehensive communications tools to share with companies before outbreak calls, we seek to create faster, more effective, and more transparent dialogue between public health officials, regulatory partners, and companies during outbreak investigations. Improved communication of epidemiologic data with companies should facilitate faster outbreak response and resolution. The current process will be evaluated and refined as outbreak detection and investigation methods evolve.