In the published article, there was an error. Some typographical errors were in the abstract that were not picked up during the proofing stage.
A correction has been made to Abstract. This section previously stated:
“Regular evaluation is a prerequisite for systems that provide surveillance of animal populations. Scotland's Rural College Veterinary vices' Disease Surveillance Centre (DSC) network plays an integral part in surveillance to detect new and re-emerging threats within animal populations, predominantly livestock. In ronse to surveillance reviews and proposed changes to the network, an initial evaluation of diagnostic submissions data in 2010 to mid-2012 established a baseline “footprint,” while highlighting challenges with the data. In this recenaluation for the period 2013–2018, we developed a new denominator using a combination of agricultural census and movement data, to identify relevant holdings more accurately. Iterative discussions between those processing submissions data ahose involved in collection at source took place to understand the intricacies of the data, establish the most appropriate dataset, and develop the processes required to optimize the data extraction and cleansing. The subsequent descriptive analysis identifies the number of diatic submissions, the number of unique holdings making submissions to the network and shows that both the surrounding geographic region of, and maximum dise to the closest DSC vary greatly between centers. Analysis of those submissions classed as farm animal post-mortems also highlights the effect of distance to the closest DSC. Whether specific differences between the time periods are due to changes in the behavior of the submitting holdior the data extraction and cleaning processes was difficult to disentangle. However, with the improved techniques producing better data to work with, a new baseline foot prior the network has been created. This provides information that can help policy makers and surveillance providers make decisions about service provision and evaluate the impact of future changes. Additionally, thtputs of these analyses can provide feedback to those employed in the service, providing evidence of what they are achieving and why changes to data collection processes and ways of working are being made. In a different setting, er data will be available and different challenges may arise. However, the fundamental principles highlighted in these evaluations and the solutions developed should be of interest to any surveillance providers generating similar diagnostic data”.
The corrected section appears below:
“Regular evaluation is a prerequisite for systems that provide surveillance of animal populations. Scotland's Rural College Veterinary Services' Disease Surveillance Centre (DSC) network plays an integral part in surveillance to detect new and re-emerging threats within animal populations, predominantly livestock. In response to surveillance reviews and proposed changes to the network, an initial evaluation of diagnostic submissions data in 2010 to mid-2012 established a baseline “footprint,” while highlighting challenges with the data. In this recent evaluation for the period 2013–2018, we developed a new denominator using a combination of agricultural census and movement data, to identify relevant holdings more accurately. Iterative discussions between those processing submissions data and those involved in collection at source took place to understand the intricacies of the data, establish the most appropriate dataset, and develop the processes required to optimise the data extraction and cleansing. The subsequent descriptive analysis identifies the number of diagnostic submissions, the number of unique holdings making submissions to the network and shows that both the surrounding geographic region of, and maximum distance to the closest DSC vary greatly between centres. Analysis of those submissions classed as farm animal post-mortems also highlights the effect of distance to the closest DSC. Whether specific differences between the time periods are due to changes in the behavior of the submitting holdings or the data extraction and cleaning processes was difficult to disentangle. However, with the improved techniques producing better data to work with, a new baseline footprint for the network has been created. This provides information that can help policy makers and surveillance providers make decisions about service provision and evaluate the impact of future changes. Additionally, the outputs of these analyses can provide feedback to those employed in the service, providing evidence of what they are achieving and why changes to data collection processes and ways of working are being made. In a different setting, other data will be available and different challenges may arise. However, the fundamental principles highlighted in these evaluations and the solutions developed should be of interest to any surveillance providers generating similar diagnostic data.”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
disease surveillance, evaluation, network, veterinary, farmer, passive surveillance, livestock
Citation
Duncan AJ, Eze JI, Brülisauer F, Stirling JM, Jennings A and Tongue SC (2023) Corrigendum: Evaluations of the disease surveillance centre network in Scotland: what parts has it reached?. Front. Vet. Sci. 10:1192445. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1192445
Received
23 March 2023
Accepted
31 March 2023
Published
12 April 2023
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
10 - 2023
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Duncan, Eze, Brülisauer, Stirling, Jennings and Tongue.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andrew J. Duncan andrew.duncan.ic@uhi.ac.uk
This article was submitted to Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.