The Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System: An evaluation of stakeholder engagement, usefulness, simplicity, acceptability, data quality and stability

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 152-157

  Halliday, Lesley E ^a   Peek, Michael J ^b   Ellwood, David A ^c   Homer, Caroline ^d   Knight, Marion ^e   McLintock, Claire ^f   Jackson Pulver, Lisa ^g   Sullivan, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f AUCKLAND CITY HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

epidemiology; evaluation; maternal complications; pregnancy; surveillance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALASIAN MATERNITY OUTCOMES SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; DATA BASE; DISEASE CONTROL; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; NEW ZEALAND; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION;

AUSTRALIA; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; NEW ZEALAND; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

EID: 84876285922     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: 1479828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12020     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Vaughan G, Pollock W, Peek MJ, et al,. Ethical issues: the multi-centre low-risk ethics/governance review process and AMOSS. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 52: 195-203.
2. Teutsch SM, Thacker SB,. Planning a public health surveillance system. Epidemiol Bull 1995; 16: 1-6.
3. Vrijhoef HJM, Janssen JJM, Greenberg ME,. Feasibility of tele-monitoring for active surveillance of influenza vaccine safety in the primary care setting in the Netherlands. J Telemed Telecare 2009; 15: 362-367.
4. UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Oxford. [Accessed 5 March 2012.] Available from URL: https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/ukoss
5. Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System (AMOSS). Working to make pregnancy and childbirth safer. [Accessed 11 January 2012.] Available from URL: http://www.amoss.com.au; http://www.amoss.co.nz
6. The ANZIC Influenza Investigators and AMOSS. Critical illness due to 2009 A/H1N1 influenza in pregnant and postpartum women: population based cohort study. BMJ 2010; 340: 1279.
7. Homer C, Kurinczuk J, Spark P, et al,. Planned vaginal delivery or planned caesarean delivery in women with extreme obesity. BJOG 2011; 118: 480-487.
8. Homer C, Biggs J, Vaughan G, Sullivan EA,. Mapping maternity services in Australia: location, classification and services. Aust Health Rev 2011; 35: 222-229.
9. Knight M, Pierce M, Seppelt I, et al,. on behalf of the UK's Obstetric Surveillance System the ANZIC Influenza Investigators, and the Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System. Critical illness with AH1N1v influenza in pregnancy: a comparison of two population-based cohorts. BJOG 2011; 118: 232-239.
10. Homer C, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, et al,. A novel use of a classification system to audit severe maternal morbidity. Midwifery 2010; 26: 532-536.
11. Nair P, Davies AR, Beca J, et al,. for The Australia New Zealand Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ANZECMO) Influenza Investigator sand the Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe ARDS in pregnant and postpartum women during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37 (4): 648-654.
12. Knight M, Berg C, Brocklehurst P, et al,. Amniotic fluid embolism incidence, risk factors and outcomes: A review and recommendations. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2012; 12: 7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-7.
13. Hsieh H, Shannon SE,. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (9): 1277-1288.
14. CDC Guidelines Working Group. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. Centres for Disease Control (CDC). MMWR 2001 (July 27); 50 (RR13): 1-35.
15. Drewe JA, Hoinville LJ, Cook AJC, et al,. Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review. Epidemiol Infect 2011; 140 (4): 575-590.
16. Foot B, Stanford M, Rahi J, Thompson J, on behalf of the British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit Steering Committee. The British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit: an evaluation of the first 3 years. Eye (Lond) 2003; 17: 9-15.
17. Gazarian M, Williams K, Elliott E, et al,. Evaluation of a national surveillance unit. Arch Dis Child 1999; 80: 21-27.
18. Guy RJ, Kong F, Goller J, et al,. on behalf of the ACCESS Collaboration A new national Chlamydia sentinel surveillance system in Australia: Evaluation of the first stage of implementation. Commun Dis Intell 2010; 34 (3): 319-328.
19. He S, Zurynski YA, Elliott EJ,. Evaluation of a national resource to identify and study rare diseases: the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit. J Paediatr Child Health 2009; 45 (9): 498-504.
20. Knowles RL, Friend H, Lynn R, et al,. on behalf of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) Surveillance of rare diseases: a public health evaluation of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit. J Public Health (Oxf) 2011; 34 (2): 279-286.
21. Williams K, Elliott E,. Role of the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit in monitoring communicable diseases of childhood. Commun Dis Intell 1998; 22 (13): 283-287.
22. Survey Monkey (2011). Oregan, USA: [Accessed 10 September 2011.] Available from URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AMOSS-Evaluation-2011
23. Bowling A, Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measuring Scales, 3rd edn. UK: Open University Press, 2005.
24. Hamilton MB, (2003). Online Survey Response Rates and Times: Background and Guidance for Industry. Super-Survey, Tercent, Inc.: Ipathia Inc.
25. Knowles RL, Smith A, Lynn R, et al,. on behalf of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) Using multiple sources to improve and measure case ascertainment in surveillance studies: 20 years of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit. J Public Health (Oxf) 2006; 28 (2): 157-165.
26. Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Smith WM, et al,. Systematic review: surveillance systems for early detection of Bioterrorism-Related Diseases. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 910-922.
27. Health Canada. Evaluation of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. Can Commun Dis Rep 2004; 30 (S2): 1-54.
28. Lynn RM, Riding K, McIntosh N,. The use of electronic reporting to aid surveillance of ADRs in children: a proof of concept study. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95 (4): 262-265.
29. Doroshenko A, Cooper D, Smith G, et al,. Evaluation of syndromic surveillance based on National Health Service Direct derived data- England and Wales. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005; 54 (suppl): 117-122.
30. Ihekweazu C, Maxwell N, Organ S, Oliver I,. STI surveillance in England meeting the requirements of the 21st century. Euro Surveill 2007; 12: 111-116.
31. Jefferson H, Dupuy B, Chaudet H, et al,. Evaluation of a syndromic surveillance for the early detection of outbreaks among military personnel in a tropical country. J Public Health (Oxf) 2008; 30: 375-383.
32. Weber IB,. Evaluation of the Notifiable Disease Surveillance System in Gauteng Province, South Africa, (M.Sc. thesis). University of Pretoria, 2007.