PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Grégoire, Vanessa
AU  - Zhu, Alex W.
AU  - Brown, Catherine M.
AU  - Brownstein, John S.
AU  - Cardo, Denise
AU  - Cumming, Fergus
AU  - Danila, Richard
AU  - Donnelly, Christl A.
AU  - Duchin, Jeffrey S.
AU  - Fill, Mary-Margaret A.
AU  - Fraser, Christophe
AU  - Fullerton, Katie
AU  - Funk, Sebastian
AU  - George, Dylan
AU  - Hopkins, Susan
AU  - Kraemer, Moritz U.G.
AU  - Layton, Marcelle
AU  - Lessler, Justin
AU  - Lynfield, Ruth
AU  - McCaw, James M.
AU  - McPherson, Tristan D.
AU  - Moore, Zack
AU  - Morgan, Oliver
AU  - Riley, Steven
AU  - Rosenfeld, Roni
AU  - Samoff, Erika
AU  - Schaffner, William
AU  - Shaffner, Julie
AU  - Sturm, Roberta
AU  - Terashita, Dawn
AU  - Walke, Henry
AU  - Washington, Raynard E.
AU  - Rivers, Caitlin M.
TI  - Public reporting guidelines for outbreak data: Enabling accountability for effective outbreak response by developing standards for transparency and uniformity
AID  - 10.1101/2024.10.24.24315886
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.10.24.24315886
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/25/2024.10.24.24315886.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/25/2024.10.24.24315886.full
AB  - Currently, there are few standards for what essential information about an infectious disease outbreak should be reported to the public and when. The content and timeliness of public reporting (e.g. situation reports) is at the discretion of the jurisdiction overseeing the outbreak response, resulting in a substantial heterogeneity in available information. To address this problem, we undertook a consensus process to develop recommendations for what epidemiological information public health authorities should report to the public during an outbreak, including the administrative level and frequency of reporting. We first assembled a steering committee of nine experts representing federal public health, state public health, academia, and international partners to develop a candidate list of reporting items. We then invited 45 experts, 35 of whom agreed to participate in a Delphi panel. Of those, 25 participated in voting in the first round, 25 participated in voting in the second round, and 25 participated in voting in the third round, demonstrating consistent engagement in the consensus-building process. The final stage of the Delphi process consisted of a hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the voting items. This resulted in a final list of nine reporting items representing the minimum set of information to include in publicly available situation reports: Numbers of new confirmed cases, new hospital admissions, new deaths, cumulative confirmed cases, cumulative hospital admissions, and cumulative deaths, each reported weekly and at Administrative level 1 (typically state or province), and stratified by sex, age group, and race/ethnicity. This minimum reporting standard creates a strong framework and guidance for uniform sharing of outbreak information and promotes consistency of data between jurisdictions to enable prompt and effective response.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Open Philanthropy Project. M.U.G.K. acknowledges funding from The Rockefeller Foundation, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School Programmes in Pandemic Genomics & Digital Pandemic Preparedness, European Union's Horizon Europe programme projects MOOD (#874850) and E4Warning (#101086640), the John Fell Fund, a Branco Weiss Fellowship and Wellcome Trust grants 225288/Z/22/Z, 226052/Z/22/Z & 228186/Z/23/Z, United Kingdom Research and Innovation (#APP8583) and the Medical Research Foundation (MRF-RG-ICCH-2022-100069). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or the other funders.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board Office of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health waived ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors