↓ Skip to main content

Correcting for day of the week and public holiday effects: improving a national daily syndromic surveillance service for detecting public health threats

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Correcting for day of the week and public holiday effects: improving a national daily syndromic surveillance service for detecting public health threats
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4372-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Buckingham-Jeffery, Roger Morbey, Thomas House, Alex J. Elliot, Sally Harcourt, Gillian E. Smith

Abstract

As service provision and patient behaviour varies by day, healthcare data used for public health surveillance can exhibit large day of the week effects. These regular effects are further complicated by the impact of public holidays. Real-time syndromic surveillance requires the daily analysis of a range of healthcare data sources, including family doctor consultations (called general practitioners, or GPs, in the UK). Failure to adjust for such reporting biases during analysis of syndromic GP surveillance data could lead to misinterpretations including false alarms or delays in the detection of outbreaks. The simplest smoothing method to remove a day of the week effect from daily time series data is a 7-day moving average. Public Health England developed the working day moving average in an attempt also to remove public holiday effects from daily GP data. However, neither of these methods adequately account for the combination of day of the week and public holiday effects. The extended working day moving average was developed. This is a further data-driven method for adding a smooth trend curve to a time series graph of daily healthcare data, that aims to take both public holiday and day of the week effects into account. It is based on the assumption that the number of people seeking healthcare services is a combination of illness levels/severity and the ability or desire of patients to seek healthcare each day. The extended working day moving average was compared to the seven-day and working day moving averages through application to data from two syndromic indicators from the GP in-hours syndromic surveillance system managed by Public Health England. The extended working day moving average successfully smoothed the syndromic healthcare data by taking into account the combined day of the week and public holiday effects. In comparison, the seven-day and working day moving averages were unable to account for all these effects, which led to misleading smoothing curves. The results from this study make it possible to identify trends and unusual activity in syndromic surveillance data from GP services in real-time independently of the effects caused by day of the week and public holidays, thereby improving the public health action resulting from the analysis of these data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Mathematics 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2021.
All research outputs
#12,749,177
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,682
of 14,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,237
of 312,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#154
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.