Search

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, effective contact tracing was recognized as a crucial public health response to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, particularly before widespread vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended implementing active surveillance strategies to trace and quarantine contacts of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases. Methods: A detailed review and analysis of the COVID-19 contact tracing responses was conducted in five European countries and territories, between March 2021 and August 2022. The countries and territories were selected to ensure geographical representation across the WHO European Region and applied a mixed-methods approach of in-depth interviews with various stakeholders across different administrative levels to identify good practices in COVID-19 contact tracing. The interviews covered 12 themes, including methods and procedures for COVID-19 contact tracing, information technology, quality assurance and key performance indicators. Results: The findings demonstrate that the policy approach, digitalization capabilities and implementation approach varied in the countries and territories and were dynamic throughout the pandemic. The analysis revealed that some practices were applicable across all countries and territories, while others were context-specific, catering to each country's and territory's unique needs. The study highlighted a need for all countries to institutionalize contact tracing as an essential function of existing health systems, to digitalize contact tracing practices and processes, and to build and retain contact tracing capacities for better pandemic preparedness. Conclusion: The lessons related to COVID-19 contact tracing should be utilized to strengthen future outbreak response operations as part of epidemic and pandemic preparedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background An effective implementation of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance projects requires sustainable and multidisciplinary engagement with stakeholders from various backgrounds, interests and aims. The "Capturing Data on Antimicrobial resistance Patterns and Trends in Use in Regions of Asia" (CAPTURA) project, funded by the Fleming Fund, initially targeted 12 countries in South Asia (SA) and Southeast Asia (SEA) to "expand the volume of historical and current data on AMR and antimicrobial usage" and support local agencies through capacity building activities. Methods In this article, we focus on early stakeholder engagement activities and present overall statistics on AMR data collated from 72 laboratories across seven countries. This included 2.3 million records of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data, which were curated, analyzed, and shared back to the facilities for informed decision making. Results Approximately 98% of the data collated by CAPTURA originated from laboratories based in SA countries. Furthermore, country-wide data were analyzed to identify commonly reported pathogens in each country, followed by descriptions of AST practices and multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. Overall, we found meager adherence to standard guidelines to perform and record AST results, and a significant number of MDR pathogens were reported. Conclusions We conclude that close collaboration with the existing national mechanisms for identifying AMR data sources was crucial for the project's success. Although we show a vast retrospective dataset on AMR is available for data sharing in Asia, there remain critical gaps in data generation/management practice and analysis capacity for AMR data at most facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a multifaceted global health problem disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Capturing data on Antimicrobial resistance Patterns and Trends in Use in Regions of Asia (CAPTURA) project was tasked to expand the volume of AMR and antimicrobial use data in Asia. The CAPTURA project used 2 data-collection streams: facility data and project metadata. Project metadata constituted information collected to map out data sources and assess data quality, while facility data referred to the retrospective data collected from healthcare facilities. A down-selection process, labelled "the funnel approach" by the project, was adopted to use the project metadata in prioritizing and selecting laboratories for retrospective AMR data collection. Moreover, the metadata served as a guide for understanding the AMR data once they were collected. The findings from CAPTURA's metadata add to the current discourse on the limitation of AMR data in LMICs. There is generally a low volume of AMR data generated as there is a lack of microbiology laboratories with sufficient antimicrobial susceptibility testing capacity. Many laboratories in Asia are still capturing data on paper, resulting in scattered or unused data not readily accessible or shareable for analyses. There is also a lack of clinical and epidemiological data captured, impeding interpretation and in-depth understanding of the AMR data. CAPTURA's experience in Asia suggests that there is a wide spectrum of capacity and capability of microbiology laboratories within a country and region. As local AMR surveillance is a crucial instrument to inform context-specific measures to combat AMR, it is important to understand and assess current capacity-building needs while implementing activities to enhance surveillance systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR) conducts active, case-based national antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance in Bangladesh. The Capturing Data on Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Trends in Use in Regions of Asia (CAPTURA) project accessed aggregated retrospective data from non-IEDCR study sites and 9 IEDCR sites to understand the pattern and extent of AMR and to use analyzed data to guide ongoing and future national AMR surveillance in both public and private laboratories. Record-keeping practices, data completeness, quality control, and antimicrobial susceptibility test practices were investigated in all laboratories participating in case-based IEDCR surveillance and laboratory-based CAPTURA sites. All 9 IEDCR laboratories recorded detailed case-based data (n = 16 816) in electronic format for a priority subset of processed laboratory samples. In contrast, most CAPTURA sites (n = 18/33 [54.5%]) used handwritten registers to store data. The CAPTURA sites were characterized by fewer recorded variables (such as patient demographics, clinical history, and laboratory findings) with 1 020 197 individual data, less integration of patient records with the laboratory information system, and nonuniform practice of data recording; however, data were collected from all available clinical samples. The analyses conducted on AMR data collected by IEDCR and CAPTURA in Bangladesh provide current data collection status and highlight opportunities to improve ongoing data collection to strengthen current AMR surveillance system initiatives. We recommend a tailored approach to conduct AMR surveillance in high-burden, resource-limited settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]