Magnitude das doenças de notificação compulsória e avaliação dos indicadores de vigilância epidemiológica em municípios da linha de fronteira do Brasil, 2007 a 2009

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

OBJETIVO: descrever a magnitude das doenças de notificação compulsória (DNC) e avaliar indicadores de vigilância epidemiológica nos 121 municípios da linha de fronteira (MLF) do Brasil. MÉTODOS: estudo descritivo, com dados do Sistema de Informação de Agravos de Notificação (Sinan) referentes ao período de 2007 a 2009, sobre 45 doenças/agravos constantes da lista das DNC e de avaliação normativa de indicadores selecionados de vigilância epidemiológica. RESULTADOS: foram registradas 405.484 notificações, relacionadas a 36 DNC; observaram-se diferenças na magnitude e distribuição de DNC entre os MLF e demais municípios do país, com desempenho heterogêneo dos indicadores de vigilância epidemiológica; no conjunto dos MLF, detectou-se baixa oportunidade de notificação e de encerramento de DNC. CONCLUSÃO: a região de fronteira do país não é uniforme. Do ponto de vista epidemiológico; destacam-se fragilidades nas capacidades das vigilâncias municipais, em especial na detecção e notificação oportuna de doenças com potencial epidêmico e ainda na capacidade de resposta às emergências de Saúde Pública.

Translated abstract

OBJECTIVE: to describe the magnitude and timely reporting of Notifiable Diseases (ND) and evaluate epidemiological indicators in 121 Brazilian border cities. METHODS: this was a descriptive study using Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) 2007-2009 data on 45 diseases notifiable in Brazil, as well as normative evaluation of selected epidemiological surveillance indicators. RESULTS: 405,484 notifications were recorded relating to 36 ND; differences in ND magnitude and distribution were found in border areas in comparison with other Brazilian cities, with heterogeneous performance in the epidemiological surveillance indicators. ND notification and timeliness of case outcome was also poor. CONCLUSION: the country's border area is not uniform. Weaknesses were found in municipal epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in detecting and timely reporting of diseases with epidemic potential, and also in the ability to respond to public health emergencies.

Translated abstract

OBJETIVO: describir la magnitud de las enfermedades de notificación obligatoria (DNC) y evaluar los indicadores de vigilancia epidemiológica (VE) en 121 municipios de la línea fronteriza (MLF) de Brasil. MÉTODOS: estudio descriptivo con datos del Sistema de Información de Enfermedades de Declaración Obligatoria (Sinan) referentes a los años 2007-2009, sobre 45 enfermedades que figuran en la lista de DNC y de evaluación normativa de los indicadores de vigilancia epidemiológica. RESULTADOS: se registraron 405.484 notificaciones referentes a 36 DNC; se observaron diferencias en la magnitud y distribución de las DNC, entre los MLF e demás municipios del país, con un desempeño heterogéneo de indicadores de VE entre los MLF; detectamos baja oportunidad de notificación y cierre de DNC. CONCLUSIÓN: a región fronteriza no es uniforme.Del punto de vista epidemiológico; encontramos debilidades en las capacidades de vigilancia municipal, en especial en cuanto a la detección e notificación oportuna de enfermedades con potencial epidémico y en lacapacidad de respuesta oportuna a emergencias de salud pública.

Related collections

Most cited references 42

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

International Health Regulations (2005)

Angela Merianos, Malik Peiris (2005)

On May 23, 2005, the 58th World Health Assembly, consisting of the 192 Member States of WHO, adopted the revised International Health Regulations (IHR), the code of international regulations for the control of transboundary infectious diseases. 1 The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome illustrated the rapidity with which a new infectious disease can spread and affect today's interconnected world. The deliberate release of anthrax in the aftermath of the events of Sept 11, 2001, highlighted another dimension of microbial threats. Neither event was adequately addressed in the previous IHR of 1969. 2 The key constraints of IHR (1969) were the limited scope of diseases (cholera, plague, yellow fever), the dependence on official notification to WHO by affected countries, the scarcity of mechanisms for collaboration in investigating such outbreaks, and the lack of specific risk-reduction measures to prevent the international spread of disease. Indeed, there was disincentive to reporting under the IHR because unaffected countries applied travel and trade restrictions far in excess of the true risks of the disease. The new IHR 2005 goes some way toward addressing these issues by establishing expert panels to review the risks to international public health and recommend evidence-based control measures. However, even the revised IHR show an inevitable compromise between national sovereignty and the collective international good; of trying to ensure the maximum security against the international spread of disease with minimum interference to travel and trade. New infectious diseases have been emerging at the unprecedented rate of about one a year for the past two decades, a trend that is expected to continue.3, 4 In the past 10 years, new and emerging infectious diseases with a potential threat to international public health include Ebola, Lassa, and Marburg haemorrhagic fevers in Africa, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Europe, meningococcal meningitis W135 associated with returning Hajj pilgrims, Nipah virus in Malaysia, West Nile virus in the Americas, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and the pandemic threat from avian influenza H5N1 in Asia. There is clearly a need for new approaches to confront these emerging threats from infectious disease. In 2000, the WHO Department of Communicable Diseases Surveillance and Response in Geneva initiated the formation of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), 5 which provides the operational and technical response arm for control of global outbreaks. In 2000–04, GOARN responded to 34 events in 26 countries, and has grown to a partnership of over 120 institutions and networks, including UN and intergovernmental organisations. The Network provided substantial support to affected countries during the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome and in response to avian influenza. It was clear that the IHR (1969) also needed to change to allow response to contemporary threats to international health. Efforts towards achieving this response began in 1995. 6 The purpose and scope of the IHR (2005) are to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public-health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public-health risks, while avoiding unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. The IHR (2005) affirm the continuing importance of WHO's role in global outbreak alert and response to public-health events. The revised IHR spell out the responsibilities for WHO, other international agencies with a mandate to protect public health (including radiation health and chemical safety), and the Member States themselves. A decision instrument has been developed to assist countries in determining whether an unexpected or unusual public-health event within its territory, irrespective of origin or source, might constitute a public-health emergency of international concern and require notification to WHO. Criteria include morbidity, mortality, whether the event is unusual or unexpected, its potential to have a major public-health effect, whether external assistance is needed to detect, investigate, respond, and control the current event, if there is a potential for international spread, or if there is a significant risk to international travel or trade. The IHR (2005) explicitly recognise the need for intersectoral and multidisciplinary cooperation in managing risks of potential international public-health importance. Key partners include intergovernmental organisations or international bodies with which WHO is expected to cooperate and coordinate its activities: eg, the UN, International Labour Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Committees and Federations of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and Office International des Epizooties. The revised IHR set out core capacities of a country's preparedness to detect and respond to health threats—early warning and routine surveillance systems, epidemiological and outbreak investigation skills, laboratory expertise, information and communication technologies, and management systems. WHO will continue its traditional role of providing support for national capacity building to achieve these core capacities. A short list of diseases (figure ) needing mandatory notification to WHO are included in the decision instrument; however, countries are now also required to assess the international public-health threat posed by any unusual health event, including those of unknown causes or sources, and outbreaks caused by agents with the known ability to cause serious public-health effect and to spread rapidly internationally. Importantly, WHO can now use a range of sources of health intelligence to raise an alarm and begin a process of verification with countries that have not voluntarily reported significant health events. Parties capitalised to the IHR are required to inform WHO within 24 h of the receipt of evidence of a public-health risk that might cause international spread of a disease. Finally, if WHO obtains credible evidence that a public-health event of international importance has occurred and fails to obtain disclosure and cooperation by the affected state, it has discretionary power to release the public-health information required to protect global public health. Figure Simplified decision instrument for assessment and notification of events that might constitute public-health emergency of international concern under International Health Regulations (2005) The IHR work on the principle of global public good—protecting public health through early detection and response to public-health emergencies benefits the nation concerned and reduces the risks of spread to other nations. 7 Their impact will be limited unless national governments accept their global public-health responsibilities. Furthermore, because most human emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, there is a need for close collaboration between the veterinary, human health, and wildlife sectors. 8 The regulations of the Office International des Epizooties, the veterinary counterpart of the IHR, face similar challenges as did the IHR (1969), and perhaps need a similar overhaul. The problems currently faced in confronting the threat to human and animal health posed by the outbreaks of avian influenza A H5N1 in Asia amply illustrate this contention. The IHR (2005) will enter into force in 2007.

0 comments Cited 46 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Portaria 104, de 25 de janeiro de 2011: Define as terminologias adotadas em legislação nacional, conforme o disposto no Regulamento Sanitário Internacional 2005 (RSI 2005), a relação de doenças, agravos e eventos em saúde pública de notificação compulsória em todo o território nacional e estabelece fluxo, critérios, responsabilidades e atribuições aos profissionais e serviços de saúde

(2011)

0 comments Cited 35 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Saúde nas fronteiras: acesso e demandas de estrangeiros e brasileiros não residentes ao SUS nas cidades de fronteira com países do MERCOSUL na perspectiva dos secretários municipais de saúde

Ligia Giovanella, Luisa Schivek Guimarães, Vera Nogueira … (2007)

No contexto de formação de mercados comuns, as regiões de fronteira adquirem especial atenção, pois antecipam efeitos dos processos de integração. Nas fronteiras convivem diferentes sistemas políticos, monetários, de segurança e proteção social, e a intensificação de fluxos decorrentes da integração gera novos desafios para os sistemas de saúde, exigindo políticas específicas direcionadas à garantia do direito à saúde nas regiões fronteiriças. Este trabalho apresenta resultados de pesquisa com o objetivo de analisar condições de acesso e demandas por serviços de saúde em cidades fronteiriças do MERCOSUL. Foi realizado inquérito com secretários municipais de saúde das 69 localidades brasileiras da linha de fronteira com países do MERCOSUL referentes aos Estados do Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná e Mato Grosso do Sul. Buscou-se identificar ações demandadas pela população fronteiriça, mecanismos utilizados para acesso, fluxos entre serviços e sistemas, estratégias de resposta e acordos locais. Iniciativas de cooperação entre gestores locais brasileiros e estrangeiros, identificadas em quase metade dos municípios, podem orientar a formulação de diretrizes para situações de fronteira que possibilitem a melhoria do acesso integral à atenção à saúde.

0 comments Cited 34 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Matheus de Paula Cerroni: Role: ND

Eduardo Hage Carmo: Role: ND

Journal

Journal ID (publisher): ress

Title: Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde

Abbreviated Title: Epidemiol. Serv. Saúde

Publisher: Ministério da Saúde do Brasil (Brasília )

ISSN: 1679-4974

Publication date (Print): December 2015

Volume: 24

Issue: 4

Pages: 617-628

Affiliations

[1 ] Ministério da Saúde Brazil

[2 ] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária Brazil

Article

Publisher ID: S2237-96222015000400617

DOI: 10.5123/S1679-49742015000400004

SO-VID: 1914e12c-6530-46ec-a45b-ea379cc9ef07

License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

History

Product

SciELO Public Health

Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2237-9622&lng=en

Read this article at

Abstract

Translated abstract

Translated abstract

Related collections

SciELO Public Health

Most cited references 42

International Health Regulations (2005)

Saúde nas fronteiras: acesso e demandas de estrangeiros e brasileiros não residentes ao SUS nas cidades de fronteira com países do MERCOSUL na perspectiva dos secretários municipais de saúde

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Product

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 141

Cited by 7

Most referenced authors 216