Evaluating measles surveillance: comparison of sentinel surveillance, mandatory notification, and data from health insurance claims

Abstract

Inadequate notification is a recognized problem of measles surveillance systems in many countries, and it should be monitored using multiple data sources. We compared data from three different surveillance sources in 2007: (1) the sentinel surveillance system mandated by the Act on Prevention of Infectious Diseases and Medical Care for Patients Suffering Infectious Diseases, (2) the mandatory notification system run by the Aichi prefectural government, and (3) health insurance claims (HICs) submitted to corporate health insurance societies. For each dataset, we examined the number of measles cases by month, within multiple age groups, and in two categories of diagnostic test groups. We found that the sentinel surveillance system underestimated the number of adult measles cases. We also found that HIC data, rather than mandatory notification data, were more likely to come from individuals who had undergone laboratory tests to confirm their measles diagnosis. Thus, HIC data may provide a supplementary and readily available measles surveillance data source.