Cited by 14Electronic Health Records SystemsData-Driven Disease SurveillanceMedical Coding and Health Information

Improving Notifiable Disease Case Reporting Through Electronic Information Exchange–Facilitated Decision Support: A Controlled Before-and-After Trial

Open access
Dixon, Brian E., Zhang, Zuoyi, Arno, Janet N., Revere, Debra, Joseph Gibson, P., Grannis, Shaun J.·2020·Public Health Reports®

Abstract

Objective: Outbreak detection and disease control may be improved by simplified, semi-automated reporting of notifiable diseases to public health authorities. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an electronic, prepopulated notifiable disease report form on case reporting rates by ambulatory care clinics to public health authorities. Methods: We conducted a 2-year (2012-2014) controlled before-and-after trial of a health information exchange (HIE) intervention in Indiana designed to prepopulate notifiable disease reporting forms to providers. We analyzed data collected from electronic prepopulated reports and “usual care” (paper, fax) reports submitted to a local health department for 7 conditions by using a difference-in-differences model. Primary outcomes were changes in reporting rates, completeness, and timeliness between intervention and control clinics. Results: Provider reporting rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea in intervention clinics increased significantly from 56.9% and 55.6%, respectively, during the baseline period (2012) to 66.4% and 58.3%, respectively, during the intervention period (2013-2014); they decreased from 28.8% and 27.5%, respectively, to 21.7% and 20.6%, respectively, in control clinics ( P < .001). Completeness improved from baseline to intervention for 4 of 15 fields in reports from intervention clinics ( P < .001), although mean completeness improved for 11 fields in both intervention and control clinics. Timeliness improved for both intervention and control clinics; however, reports from control clinics were timelier (mean, 7.9 days) than reports from intervention clinics (mean, 9.7 days). Conclusions: Electronic, prepopulated case reporting forms integrated into providers’ workflow, enabled by an HIE network, can be effective in increasing notifiable disease reporting rates and completeness of information. However, it was difficult to assess the effect of using the forms for diseases with low prevalence (eg, salmonellosis, histoplasmosis).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0033354920914318

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ELR provides a robust foundation upon which HIEs can offer electronic case reporting (eCR).

    “Moreover, ELR provides a robust foundation upon which HIEs can offer electronic case reporting (eCR) [24].”

    From Evolution of clinical Health Information Exchanges to population health resources: a case study of the Indiana network for patient care (2025) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Methods (page unavailable) describe electronic laboratory results triggering an HIE system that generates and electronically delivers prepopulated case-reporting forms. This supports laboratory reporting as a basis for HIE-facilitated reporting, but the forms were usually submitted to the health department by fax; the trial does not establish fully electronic case reporting. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [34]34. SAS [computer program]. Version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 2019. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dixon, B. E., Zhang, Z., Arno, J. N., Revere, D., Joseph Gibson, P., & Grannis, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Marion County Public Health Department (US)
  • School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
  • Marion County Public Health Department, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Corresponding author
Dixon, Brian E.
Venue
Public Health Reports®
Published
2020-04-06
Volume
135
Issue
3
Pages
401-410
ISSN
  • 0033-3549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2877
OpenAlex
W3014454724
Cited by
14
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS020909)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (71596)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
communicable disease reporting, health information exchange, clinical decision support, ambulatory care clinics, chlamydia, gonorrhea, reporting rates, reporting completeness, report timeliness, disease surveillance, workflow integration
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities, Data Collection, Humans, Indiana, Population Surveillance, Socioeconomic Factors, Disease Notification, Electronic Health Records, Controlled Before-After Studies, Health Information Exchange

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review