==== Front
Online J Public Health InformOnline J Public Health InformOJPHIOnline Journal of Public Health Informatics1947-2579University of Illinois at Chicago Library ojphi-10-e7910.5210/ojphi.v10i1.8645ISDS 2018 Conference AbstractsPublic Health Impact of Syndromic Surveillance Data—A
Literature Survey Albert Stefanie P. *Ergas Rosa Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
Boston, MA, USA* Stefanie P. Albert E-mail: stefanie.albert@state.ma.us30 5 2018 2018 10 1 e79ISDS Annual Conference Proceedings 2018. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting
all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.Keywords 
impactutilityevaluationliterature
==== Body
Objective
To assess evidence for public health impact of syndromic surveillance.

Introduction
Systematic syndromic surveillance is undergoing a transition. Building on traditional
roots in bioterrorism and situational awareness, proponents are demonstrating the
timeliness and informative power of syndromic surveillance data to supplement other
surveillance data.

Methods
We used PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles published since 2007 using key
words of interest (e.g., syndromic surveillance in combinations with emergency,
evaluation, quality assurance, alerting). The following guiding questions were used
to abstract impact measures of syndromic surveillance: 1) what was the public health
impact; what decisions or actions occurred because of use of syndromic surveillance
data?, 2) were there specific interventions or performance measures for this
impact?, and 3) how, and by whom, was this information used?

Results
Thirty-five papers were included. Almost all articles (n=33) remarked on the ability
of syndromic surveillance to improve public health because of timeliness and/or
accuracy of data. Thirty-four articles mentioned that syndromic surveillance data
was used or could be useful. However, evidence of health impact directly
attributable to syndromic surveillance efforts were lacking. Two articles described
how syndromic data were used for decision-making. One article measured the effect of
data utilization.

Conclusions
Within the syndromic surveillance literature instances of a conceptual shift from
detection to practical response are plentiful. As the field of syndromic
surveillance continues to evolve and is used by public health institutions, further
evaluation of data utility and impact is needed.

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to— Mark Bova, Kevin Cranston, Alfred DeMaria, Rosa Ergas,
Gillian Haney, Monina Klevens, and Sita Smith.