Talk:Public health surveillance

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

started

I started the site on clinical surveillance: it is a word increasingly occuring in medicine, I have put up a first definition, but I am open to debate to get a great wikipedia article that defines what is happening. - unsigned 1

It is a great topic. I've been finding lots of information on it while I was researching surveillance in daycare. - unsigned 2

redirect

I don't know how to do a redirect, but may I propose that the search term "public health surveillance" redirect to this article? That's how I got here, and as a public health informatics student, the two terms seem closely related enough to me to make a redirect work. Museumfreak 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've implemented it. WAS 4.250 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the redirect more speedily than I could look up how to do it! Museumfreak 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of surveillance

I may come back and look at this nice article a little more later when I'm not writing a paper, in particular grammar fairying it as I think it was written by someone whose first language is not English, but for the moment let me also suggest that you define surveillance as something other than the act of surveilling because that doesn't do anything towards making the term more clear for someone who doesn't understand what surveilling is in the first place. Museumfreak 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding definition of surveillance! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. WAS 4.250 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to write a definition of surveillance based on the one here: [[1]]. I do plan to do these edits, it's just that I'm too busy to do them right now, so I'm suggesting them for the moment so I remember to come back. Museumfreak 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical sousveillance as a legitimate term (NPOV)

While I don't necessarily take up the "must be used in the mass media" opinion on Wikipedia, I am a little concerned about the fact that Google only reveals Clinical Sousveillance used in a small subgroup of bloggers who all read each other. Please see Wikipedia:Talk:Sousveillance for more details about this controversy. While sousveillance may have gained currency, I highly doubt that clinical sousveillance has, and certainly not as a medical term in the way that it is being used in this article. I'm seeking opinions on whether this should be removed from the article.Museumfreak 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs 1000 times more data on this subject. Please add whatever sourced data you can and trust the process to filter it to its proper place. Or even better, get really involved and create hundreds of needed articles to fully expand the concepts involved here. WAS 4.250 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tell me about it. The public health section of Wikipedia is terrible to nonexistent, although perhaps the categories are just bad. Does Wikipedia have rules for citing sources and a style manual? I've at least edited the first section of the article now. Museumfreak 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See H5N1 for an example. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for "a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles". See Wikipedia:List of guidelines for an overall guide list and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for a style manual. Good luck. Oh, and our most important rule is BE BOLD. WAS 4.250 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization in this article (NPOV: Proposal to fork article)

Okay, I have to take issue with the entire second half of this article being put in the article. My first urge is to delete it, but I won't. The first two paragraphs of the article are fine, the See Also section is fine, the references are fine. I wasn't going to because I know I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I think I'm going to have to call WP:NPOV on this.

I'm not a PHS expert, first of all: I won't take my course in it for another year. Ironically, I'm much more an expert in the kinds of issues that the concept of sousveillance gets at. I think it's fine to present SOME of the material presented in the later part of the article under the rubric of "resistance to clinical surveillance" or "some people disagree and this is how they act," but if you run a Google Test, or maybe more importantly look at actual books (like the public health surveillance chapter of Public Health Informatics & Information Systems, eds O'Carroll, Yasnoff, Ward et al) or attend lectures by people important in the field, as I have, you're not going to hear anything about any of this. If you know my own work, you'll know I'm a big fan of resistance and culture jamming and concepts like sousveillance. But this is an encyclopedia. We can't do original research, regardless of my biases or the original poster's biases.

My proposal is that some of the second half of the article be forked into an article called clinical sousveillance, because sousveillance and surveillance are distinct concepts, and that each article be linked from the other. The entire Future and Advocacy section should go there for sure. The other three sections I'm not sure about, and I am accepting proposals from people who are more expert as to whether any part of them should be in this article. Museumfreak 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. Be bold. Be bold. Be bold. Be bold. Be bold. Go for it already. Do what needs to be done. Use your best judgement and just do it. (Verification (provide sources), no original research and neutral point of view, of course). WAS 4.250 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only other person who has written substantive content on this article appears to be a wikipedia account created primarily to edit articles on topics related to sousveillance, which doesn't in itself make the contributions in violation of NPOV, but makes them slightly questionable.Museumfreak 05:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical sousveillance content has been forked into its own article, which has gone to WP:PROD under WP:NOR/WP:FRINGE. Thanks for your input!Museumfreak 00:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still under construction, no really

I reverted all changes to this article that removed the under construction notice. I have now asked twice at Village Pump:Assistance what the accepted procedure for forking an article is and nobody's told me. Until somebody tells me, it's under construction because all that material is waiting to be forked. Furthermore, the notice had been there for less than a WEEK; not everyone's real life runs on internet time. Museumfreak 23:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions, ask me. I'll be glad to help. But you really don't need to ask anyone. Just use common sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In progress. Not yet at version 1.0 but people treat it as if it were. Just always leave the article in a useable state. Scratchpads that the naive user won't see can be created as many as you need. We need lots of help to get to the point of being a version 1.0 encyclopedia. Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Building clinical sousveillance

Ok: I understand the edit process, and I am still at getting this defined: I have expanded the JCAHO definition, in particular to the patient safety goals. I also want to create an article on reconcilation of medicines, and then demonstrate several links to the surveillance of medication errors. whole bunch of articles on the surveillance of adverse drug outcomes will help define clinical souveillance, as well as some know how that I learned about at H.O.P.E. - User:Culturejam

GreeneChip

'GreeneChip' -- New diagnostic tool that rapidly and accurately identifies multiple pathogens [2] Brian Pearson 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syndromic Surveillance vs Clinical Surveillance

Note that there is also a separate article on Syndromic Surveillance, which in my opinion is pretty much the same as Clinical Surveillance - perhaps in the age of bioterrorism the more common term now. Needs to be discussed whether both articles should be merged.--Eysen 15:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two articles. Poorly. Anyone who wants to improve the article in any way is highly encouraged to do so. Be bold. WAS 4.250 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to new article

The article previously known as Reporting disease cases was renamed Disease surveillance. I was unaware of this pages existence when proposing this change.

Should the pages be merged or does Disease surveillance serve a purpose as a subset of clinical surveillence (which seems to me to refer to non-infectious disease surveillence, such as poisoning, toxicity, tumours, genetic disease etc.--ZayZayEM 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that syndromic surveillance is more broad because it includes analysis of non-clinical data types, however the difference is largely inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.251.106 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clinical surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609163243/http://www.nyc.gov:80/html/doh/html/diabetes/diabetes-nycar.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/diabetes/diabetes-nycar.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public health surveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdc.gov/EPO/dphsi/syndromic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]