To help limit the potential bias in a study as this, and to help support the validity of the results, the researcher will cross compare the results of the study with information gathered from other recent studies monitoring surveillance programs within the primary regions and throughout other areas of the country. It is important to note that to further validate this study, additional research in the future involving a much wider population base would help prove or disprove the theories and results presented in this study.

Results

The results of this study will contribute to the body of literature available and provided by the MMWR (2000; 1998) on disease prevention and surveillance of disease in various regions of the world. The researcher will provide additional guidelines for professionals working in the surveillance field that will enable them to centralize surveillance systems and provide faster response times. Additionally the research provided will enable those working in surveillance to easily discern non-threatening diseases or outbreaks from those requiring emergent attention. This will limit the need for extraneous work and improve the efficiency of surveillance programs currently in place (Krause, Ropers & Strak, 2005). The research also provides guidelines regarding what emerging infectious diseases are most likely to require emergent response, and help professionals develop appropriate protocol for handling urgent care matters to protect the public (Ofili, et al., 2003; Nsubuga, et al., 2002; Wuhib, et al., 2002).

References

Assessment of Infectious Disease Surveillance Uganda, 2000; MMWR 2000 Aug,

Bakarman MA, Al-Raddadi RM. Assessment of reporting and recording system of communicable diseases in Jeddah Region. Saudi Medical Journal 2000; Vol.21 (8):751-754

Center for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health and

Principles of Epidemiology. Atlanta Georgia 30333.
Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR 1988, 37(S-5); 1-18.

Krause G, Ropers G, Strak K. Notifiable Disease Surveillance and Practicing Physicians.

Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2005 March; 11(3):442-5.

Doyle T, Samuel KG. Completeness of notifiable infectious disease reporting in the United States: An analytical literature review. American Journal of Epidemiology.155 (9):866-74.

Jajosky RA, Groseclose S. Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health 2004 July, 4:29

Ministry of Health. Surveillance in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Epidemiology Bulletin. 993; 1(2)

Ministry of Health. Surveillance: Information for action. Saudi Epidemiology Bulletin.

Nsubuga P, Eseko N, Wuhib T, Ndayimirije N, Chungong S, McNabb S. Structure and performance of infectious disease surveillance and response, United Republic of Tanzania, 1998. Bull World Health Org 2002; 80(3):196-202.

Ofili an, Ugwu EN, Ziregbe a, Richards R, Salami S. Knowledge of disease notification among doctors in government hospitals in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. Public Health 2003 May, 117(3):214-7.

Seneviratne SL, Gunatilake SB, de Silva HJ. Reporting notifiable diseases: methods for improvement, attitudes and community outcome. Trans R. Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Mar-Apr; 91(2):135-7.

Waife S, Davenhall B. ESRI Health and Human Services Solutions: Extending

Disease

Surveillance with GIS. ArcUser [serial on the Internet]. April - June 2005 [cited 2006 Jul 26]; [about 2 p.]. Available at http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0405/disease_surveil1of2.html. Accessed on June 25, 2006.

World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.

Surveillance of communicable diseases a training manual. Alexandria: 1998

WHO-EM/CDS/52/E/L/06.98/2000.

Wuhib, T., Chorba, TL, Davidiants, V, Kenzie, WR, McNabb, S. Assessment of the infectious diseases surveillance system of the Republic of Armenia: An example of surveillance in the Republics of the former Soviet Union. BMC. Public Health; vol. 2:2002