ABSTRACT
Introduction Traditional surveillance methods have been enhanced by the emergence of online participatory syndromic surveillance systems that collect health-related digital data. These systems have many applications including tracking weekly prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness (ILI), predicting probable infection of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), and determining risk factors of ILI and COVID-19. However, not every volunteer consistently completes surveys. In this study, we assess how different missing data methods affect estimates of ILI burden using data from FluTracking, a participatory surveillance system in Australia.
Methods We estimate the incidence rate, the incidence proportion, and weekly prevalence using five missing data methods: available case, complete case, assume missing is non-ILI, multiple imputation (MI), and delta (δ) MI, which is a flexible and transparent method to impute missing data under Missing Not at Random (MNAR) assumptions. We evaluate these methods using simulated and FluTracking data.
Results Our simulations show that the optimal missing data method depends on the measure of ILI burden and the underlying missingness model. Of note, the δ-MI method provides estimates of ILI burden that are similar to the true parameter under MNAR models. When we apply these methods to FluTracking, we find that the δ-MI method accurately predicted complete, end of season weekly prevalence estimates from real-time data.
Conclusion Missing data is an important problem in participatory surveillance systems. Here, we show that accounting for missingness using statistical approaches leads to different inferences from the data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The FluTracking surveillance system is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
FluTracking was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee on 13 April 2006 (06/04/22/4.03). On 2 October 2009, FluTracking was incorporated into routine national influenza surveillance, and so ethics approval was no longer required and considered closed for FluTracking.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Contact Flutracking{at}flutracking.net to request data. Data requests will be actioned within resource constraints.
ABBREVIATIONS
- AU
- Australia
- CI
- Confidence Interval
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus 2019
- FNY
- Flu Near You
- ILI
- Influenza-Like Illness
- IP
- Incidence Proportion
- IR
- Incidence Rate
- MAR
- Missing at Random
- MCAR
- Missing Completely at Random
- MI
- Multiple Imputation
- MICE
- Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations
- MMWR
- Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
- MNAR
- Missing Not at Random
- NRMSE
- Normalized Root Mean Square Error
- US
- United States of America
- WHO
- World Health Organization
- WP
- Weekly Prevalence
