Layout 1 ISDS Annual Conference Proceedings 2012. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ISDS 2012 Conference Abstracts Identification and Assessment of Public Health Surveillance Gaps under the IHR (2005) Ngozi Erondu*1, Betiel Hadgu Haile1, Lisa Ferland1, Meeyoung Park1, Affan Shaikh1, Heather Meeks2 and Scott JN McNabb1 1Public Health Practice, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Washington, DC, USA Objective To conceive and develop a model to identify gaps in public health surveillance performance and provide a toolset to assess interven- tions, cost, and return on investment (ROI). Introduction Under the revised International Health Regulations (IHR [2005]) one of the eight core capacities is public health surveillance. In May 2012, despite a concerted effort by the global community, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported out that a significant number of member states would not achieve targeted capacity in the IHR (2005) surveillance core capacity. Currently, there is no model to identify and measure these gaps in surveillance performance. Likewise, there is no toolset to assess in- terventions by cost and estimate the ROI. We developed a new conceptual framework that: (1) described the work practices to achieve effective and efficient public health sur- veillance; (2) could identify impediments or gaps in performance; and (3) will assist program managers in decision making. Methods Published articles and grey-literature reports, manuals and logic model examples were gathered through a literature review of PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and other databases. Logic models were conceived by categorizing discrete surveillance inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Indicators were selected from au- thoritative sources or developed and then mapped to the logic model elements. These indicators will be weighted using the principle com- ponent analysis (PCA), a method for enhanced precision of statisti- cal analysis. Finally, on the front end of the tool, indicators will graphically measure the surveillance gap expressed through the tool’s architecture and provide information using an integrated cost-impact analysis. Results We developed five public health surveillance logic models: for IHR (2005) compliance; event-based; indicator-based; syndromic; and predictive surveillance domains. The IHR (2005) domain focused on national-level functionality, and the others described the com- plexities of their specific surveillance work practices. Indicators were then mapped and linked to all logic model elements. Conclusions This new framework, intended for self-administration at the na- tional and subnational levels, measured public health surveillance gaps in performance and provided cost and ROI information by in- tervention. The logic model framework and PCA methodology are tools that both describe work processes and define appropriate vari- ables used for evaluation. However, both require real-world data. We recommend pilot testing and validation of this new framework. Once piloted, the framework could be adapted for the other IHR (2005) core capacities. Keywords Public health surveillance; Evaluation; IHR (2005); Gaps assessment; Cost-impact analysis Acknowledgments Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the World Health Organization References 1. Implementation of the International Health Regulations., Stat. Reso- lution WHA65.23 ( 26 May 2012 ). 2. May L, Chretien JP, Pavlin JA. Beyond traditional surveillance: ap- plying syndromic surveillance to developing settings—opportunities and challenges. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:242. Epub 2009/07/18. 3. Wilson K, McDougall C, Fidler DP, Lazar H. Strategies for imple- menting the new International Health Regulations in federal coun- tries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008;86(3):215-20. Epub 2008/03/28. 4. Organization WH. International Health Regulations (2005) Second Edition. 2008. 5. Sturtevant JL, Anema A, Brownstein JS. The new International Health Regulations: considerations for global public health surveillance. Dis- aster Med Public Health Prep. 2007;1(2):117-21. Epub 2008/04/05. 6. Lyons S, Zidouh A, Ali Bejaoui M, Ben Abdallah M, Amine S, Gar- bouj M, et al. Implications of the International Health Regulations (2005) for communicable disease surveillance systems: Tunisia’s ex- perience. Public Health. 2007;121(9):690-5. Epub 2007/06/05. 7. Calain P. Exploring the international arena of global public health sur- veillance. Health Policy Plan. 2007;22(1):2-12. Epub 2007/01/24. 8. Baker MG, Forsyth AM. The new International Health Regulations: a revolutionary change in global health security. N Z Med J. 2007;120(1267):U2872. Epub 2007/12/25. 9. Cash RA, Narasimhan V. Impediments to global surveillance of in- fectious diseases: consequences of open reporting in a global econ- omy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2000;78(11): 1358-67. Epub 2001/01/06. 10. Fidler DP. Globalization, international law, and emerging infectious diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 1996;2(2):77-84. Epub 1996/04/01. 11. Organization WH. World Health Organization: Disease Surveillance. Weekly Epidemiological Record [Internet].1998. *Ngozi Erondu E-mail: ngozierondu@gmail.com Online Journal of Public Health Informatics * ISSN 1947-2579 * http://ojphi.org * 5(1):e80, 2013