Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,138 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health-related data with the purpose of preventing or controlling disease or injury, or of identifying unusual events of public health importance, followed by the dissemination and use of information for public health action. (From Am J Prev Med 2011;41(6):636)
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Surveillance, Public Health.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Population Surveillance
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 5,476 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Public Health Surveillance” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 1,657 of them (30.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 3,890 records.
Reviews account for 513 records (9.4%) and meta-analyses for 60. Randomized controlled trials number 29 (0.5%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 3,890 |
| 2020 onward | 1,657 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 513 | 9.4% |
| Meta-analyses | 60 | 1.1% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 29 | 0.5% |
Method: PubMed query "Public Health Surveillance"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey | 2021 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 163 | cc by PMID 33308423 · DOI · PMC7786000 |
| Dynamic linkage of COVID-19 test results between Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and UK Biobank | 2020 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 122 | cc by PMID 32553051 · DOI · PMC7478634 |
| Tracking COVID-19 in Europe: Infodemiology Approach | 2020 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 87 | cc by PMID 32250957 · DOI · PMC7173241 |
| Explainable AI for public health surveillance: investigating the persistent crisis of intentional injury mortality (suicide and homicide) in the Americas | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 42178350 · DOI · PMC13429623 |
Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundDecisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive.
- Closing excerpt
- FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (447 words)
BackgroundDecisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design.MethodsSamples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382.FindingsBetween April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29-0·54) to 0·06% (0·04-0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17-24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17-24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45-68%, dependent on calendar time.InterpretationImportant risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards.FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33308423 · DOI · PMC7786000
Dynamic linkage of COVID-19 test results between Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and UK Biobank [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- UK Biobank (UKB) is an international health resource enabling research into the genetic and lifestyle determinants of common diseases of middle and older age.
- Closing excerpt
- This new dynamic linkage system has further potential to facilitate the investigation of other infections and the prospective collection of microbiological cultures to create a microbiological biobank (bugbank) for studying the interaction of environment, human and microbial genetics on infection in the UKB cohort.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (254 words)
UK Biobank (UKB) is an international health resource enabling research into the genetic and lifestyle determinants of common diseases of middle and older age. It comprises 500 000 participants. Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System is a centralized microbiology database covering English clinical diagnostics laboratories that provides national surveillance of legally notifiable infections, bacterial isolations and antimicrobial resistance. We previously developed secure, pseudonymized, individual-level linkage of these systems. In this study, we implemented rapid dynamic linkage, which allows us to provide a regular feed of new COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) test results to UKB to facilitate rapid and urgent research into the epidemiological and human genetic risk factors for severe infection in the cohort. Here, we have characterized the first 1352 cases of COVID-19 in UKB participants, of whom 895 met our working definition of severe COVID-19 as inpatients hospitalized on or after 16 March 2020. We found that the incidence of severe COVID-19 among UKB cases was 27.4 % lower than the general population in England, although this difference varied significantly by age and sex. The total number of UKB cases could be estimated as 0.6 % of the publicly announced number of cases in England. We considered how increasing case numbers will affect the power of genome-wide association studies. This new dynamic linkage system has further potential to facilitate the investigation of other infections and the prospective collection of microbiological cultures to create a microbiological biobank (bugbank) for studying the interaction of environment, human and microbial genetics on infection in the UKB cohort.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32553051 · DOI · PMC7478634
Tracking COVID-19 in Europe: Infodemiology Approach [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundInfodemiology (ie, information epidemiology) uses web-based data to inform public health and policy.
- Closing excerpt
- With the COVID-19 pandemic still in the beginning stages, it is essential to explore and combine new methods of disease surveillance to assist with the preparedness of health care systems at the regional level.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (243 words)
BackgroundInfodemiology (ie, information epidemiology) uses web-based data to inform public health and policy. Infodemiology metrics have been widely and successfully used to assess and forecast epidemics and outbreaks.ObjectiveIn light of the recent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic that started in Wuhan, China in 2019, online search traffic data from Google are used to track the spread of the new coronavirus disease in Europe.MethodsTime series from Google Trends from January to March 2020 on the Topic (Virus) of "Coronavirus" were retrieved and correlated with official data on COVID-19 cases and deaths worldwide and in the European countries that have been affected the most: Italy (at national and regional level), Spain, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.ResultsStatistically significant correlations are observed between online interest and COVID-19 cases and deaths. Furthermore, a critical point, after which the Pearson correlation coefficient starts declining (even if it is still statistically significant) was identified, indicating that this method is most efficient in regions or countries that have not yet peaked in COVID-19 cases.ConclusionsIn the past, infodemiology metrics in general and data from Google Trends in particular have been shown to be useful in tracking and forecasting outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics as, for example, in the cases of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, Ebola, measles, and Zika. With the COVID-19 pandemic still in the beginning stages, it is essential to explore and combine new methods of disease surveillance to assist with the preparedness of health care systems at the regional level.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32250957 · DOI · PMC7173241
Explainable AI for public health surveillance: investigating the persistent crisis of intentional injury mortality (suicide and homicide) in the Americas [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Intentional injury mortality (IIM), comprising homicide and suicide, remains a critical public health crisis in the Americas, which not only has the highest regional homicide rates globally but is also the only region where suicide rates continue to rise.
- Closing excerpt
- These findings underscore the need for dual-horizon policy approaches that address both immediate crises and structural root causes.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (194 words)
Intentional injury mortality (IIM), comprising homicide and suicide, remains a critical public health crisis in the Americas, which not only has the highest regional homicide rates globally but is also the only region where suicide rates continue to rise. This study employs explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to examine the structural and temporal drivers of IIM across 25 countries, based on data from the previous two decades. Two complementary models were developed: a snapshot model based on contemporaneous socioeconomic indicators and a persistence-aware model incorporating lagged effects of predictors. Analyses were conducted across both income-level categories and geographic sub-regions to uncover context-specific patterns. While both models performed at acceptable levels in distinguishing immediate and enduring effects, persistence-aware models consistently outperformed snapshot models, thereby reframing IIM as a temporally sustained phenomenon. Feature importance, interpreted through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), highlighted the varying impacts of unemployment, inflation, corruption, and economic growth across income tiers and sub-regions. The results demonstrate that a combination of short-term shocks and the long-standing effects of governance and social factors drives IIM in the Americas. These findings underscore the need for dual-horizon policy approaches that address both immediate crises and structural root causes.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42178350 · DOI · PMC13429623
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Towards a genomics-informed, real-time, global pathogen surveillance system [5]
- Research article What we know so far: COVID-19 current clinical knowledge and research [6]
- Research article Overview and Methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System - United States, 2019 [7]
- Research article Epidemiology of HIV in the USA: epidemic burden, inequities, contexts, and responses [8]
- Research article Hajj: infectious disease surveillance and control [9]
- Research article Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Progress and Challenges in Eight South Asian and Southeast Asian Countries [10]
References
- Pouwels KB, House T, Pritchard E, Robotham JV, Birrell PJ, Gelman A, et al.. Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey. . 2021. PMID 33308423 · DOI · PMC7786000
- Armstrong J, Rudkin JK, Allen N, Crook DW, Wilson DJ, Wyllie DH, et al.. Dynamic linkage of COVID-19 test results between Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and UK Biobank. . 2020. PMID 32553051 · DOI · PMC7478634
- Mavragani A. Tracking COVID-19 in Europe: Infodemiology Approach. . 2020. PMID 32250957 · DOI · PMC7173241
- Kularathne S, Rathnayake N, Jayathilaka R, Nakaoka I, Hoshino Y. Explainable AI for public health surveillance: investigating the persistent crisis of intentional injury mortality (suicide and homicide) in the Americas. . 2026. PMID 42178350 · DOI · PMC13429623
- Gardy JL, Loman NJ. Towards a genomics-informed, real-time, global pathogen surveillance system. Nat Rev Genet. 2018. PMID 29129921 · DOI · PMC7097748
- Lake MA. What we know so far: COVID-19 current clinical knowledge and research. Clin Med (Lond). 2020. PMID 32139372 · DOI · PMC7081812
- Underwood JM, Brener N, Thornton J, Harris WA, Bryan LN, Shanklin SL, et al.. Overview and Methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System - United States, 2019. MMWR Suppl. 2020. PMID 32817611 · DOI · PMC7440204
- Sullivan PS, Satcher Johnson A, Pembleton ES, Stephenson R, Justice AC, Althoff KN, et al.. Epidemiology of HIV in the USA: epidemic burden, inequities, contexts, and responses. Lancet. 2021. PMID 33617774 · DOI · PMC12707558
- Memish ZA, Zumla A, Alhakeem RF, Assiri A, Turkestani A, Al Harby KD, et al.. Hajj: infectious disease surveillance and control. Lancet. 2014. PMID 24857703 · DOI · PMC7137990
- Gandra S, Alvarez-Uria G, Turner P, Joshi J, Limmathurotsakul D, van Doorn HR. Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Progress and Challenges in Eight South Asian and Southeast Asian Countries. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020. PMID 32522747 · DOI · PMC7289787
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.