BACKGROUND: In June 2016, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists distributed an assessment to document how influenza-related information is collected, analyzed, interpreted, and disseminated in the United States. Specifically, the assessment contained targeted questions to determine what influenza-related events are reportable; what systems and methods are used to acquire this information; how this information is used in decision-making; how this information is generally disseminated to various stakeholders; and respondents’ general satisfaction with how these approaches are meeting the jurisdiction’s needs.
METHODS: The assessment was sent to Influenza Surveillance Coordinators and State Epidemiologists in state, territorial, and select large urban health departments and was completed by 51 jurisdictions. This analysis focuses on a subset of questions related to perceived timeliness and usefulness of influenza surveillance systems.
RESULTS: The assessment asked respondents to indicate which surveillance systems are used to collect influenza and ILI data within their jurisdiction. The results revealed that 51 (100%) respondents use ILINet, 51 (100%) of respondents receive data from case/outbreak investigations, 50 (98%) respondents receive reports from public health laboratories, 48 (94%) respondents receive reports from non-public health laboratories, 48 (94%) respondents receive influenza-associated mortality data, and 44 (86%) respondents utilize syndromic surveillance. Although the assessment results indicated that ILINet and case/outbreak investigations are the most widely used sources of influenza-related data, only 33 (65%) of respondents using ILINet reported that the data received through ILINet is timely enough, with most jurisdictions receiving data between 2 and 7 days after data collection (34, 67%). Only 28 (55%) of respondents receiving data through case/outbreak investigations reported this data was timely enough with 31 (61%) of respondents receiving this data between 2 and 7 days after data collection. When asked to report perceived usefulness for general influenza-associated situational awareness, 46 (92%) of respondents receiving laboratory reports from public health laboratories and 39 (81%) of respondents receiving data from non-public health laboratories reported the system to be very useful. Forty-one (82%) of respondents receiving reports from public health laboratories reported the system to be timely enough and 32 (67%) respondents receiving reports from non-public health laboratories reported the system to be timely enough.
CONCLUSIONS: Health departments employ a variety of surveillance systems to collect information related to influenza and ILI-related events within their jurisdictions. Although many of the same systems are used, the perceived utility varies greatly by state. Collecting this information and sharing best practices can improve influenza surveillance throughout the US.