↓ Skip to main content

Disease surveillance system evaluation as a model for improved integration and standardization of the laboratory component in the Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program (FELTP) curriculum…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Public Health Policy, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Disease surveillance system evaluation as a model for improved integration and standardization of the laboratory component in the Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program (FELTP) curriculum worldwide
Published in
Journal of Public Health Policy, September 2012
DOI 10.1057/jphp.2012.35
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Rush

Abstract

Integration of laboratory training into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) began in 2004 and has advanced the training of laboratory scientists worldwide on the basic principles of epidemiology, disease surveillance, and outbreak investigation. The laboratory component of the FE(L)TP training has traditionally been disease specific, revolving around classroom and bench training on laboratory methods, and field placement in areas where services are needed. There is however a need to improve the integration of epidemiology elements used in surveillance, outbreak investigation, and evaluation activities with specific measurable laboratory activities that could in turn impact the overall disease surveillance and response. A systematic and clear evaluation guideline for the laboratory components of disease surveillance systems alongside the corresponding epidemiological indicators can better identify, address, and mitigate weaknesses that may exist in the entire surveillance system, and also help to integrate and standardize the FE(L)TP curriculum content. The institution of laboratory Quality Management System principles linked to a comprehensive surveillance evaluation scheme will result in improved disease surveillance, response, and overall laboratory capacity over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 15%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,381,700
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#302
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,870
of 168,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 168,451 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.