Table 2 |
||||
|
Approaches to evaluation identified |
||||
|
Approach |
Main Feature |
Main Limitation |
1999–2004 Prevalence* n (%) |
2005–2006 Prevalence** n (%) |
|
|
||||
|
Simulation |
Outbreak signal specified |
Generalisability of findings to the authentic context |
17 (27%) |
15 (45%) |
|
Descriptive |
No outbreak definition required |
Evaluation not directly related to event of interest |
12 (19%) |
3 (9%) |
|
Derived |
Consistent outbreak definition used |
Limited number of factors used in outbreak definition |
18 (29%) |
0 (0%) |
|
Epidemiological |
Complexity considered in outbreak definition |
Potential variability, may be resource intensive |
25 (40%) |
17 (52%) |
|
|
||||
|
*9 of the 63 studies reviewed (14%) used multiple approaches to evaluation **2 of the 33 studies reviewed (6%) used multiple approaches to evaluation |
||||
|
Watkins et al. BMC Public Health 2006 6:263 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-263 |
||||
