This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1326) Infoveillance, Infodemiology, Digital Disease Surveillance, Infodemic Management (1050) Infectious Diseases (non-STD/STI) (1592) Public (e)Health, Digital Epidemiology and Public Health Informatics (750) Reviews on Public Health Technology and Innovation (70) Surveillance Systems (466) Public Health (207) Innovative Methods in Public Health and Surveillance (336) Public Health Informatics (93)

Published on in Vol 26 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/57476, first published .
Use of Digital Tools in Arbovirus Surveillance: Scoping Review

Use of Digital Tools in Arbovirus Surveillance: Scoping Review

Use of Digital Tools in Arbovirus Surveillance: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Carolina Lopes Melo1 Author Orcid Image ;   Larissa Rangel Mageste1 Author Orcid Image ;   Lusiele Guaraldo1 Author Orcid Image ;   Daniela Polessa Paula2 Author Orcid Image ;   Mayumi Duarte Wakimoto1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Review

    1Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    2Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Mayumi Duarte Wakimoto, MD, PhD

    Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas

    Fundação Oswaldo Cruz

    Avenida Brasil, 4365

    Rio de Janeiro, 21040-900

    Brazil

    Phone: 55 2138659110

    Email: mayumi.wakimoto@ini.fiocruz.br


    Background: The development of technology and information systems has led to important changes in public health surveillance.

    Objective: This scoping review aimed to assess the available evidence and gather information about the use of digital tools for arbovirus (dengue virus [DENV], zika virus [ZIKV], and chikungunya virus [CHIKV]) surveillance.

    Methods: The databases used were MEDLINE, SCIELO, LILACS, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The inclusion criterion was defined as studies that described the use of digital tools in arbovirus surveillance. The exclusion criteria were defined as follows: letters, editorials, reviews, case reports, series of cases, descriptive epidemiological studies, laboratory and vaccine studies, economic evaluation studies, and studies that did not clearly describe the use of digital tools in surveillance. Results were evaluated in the following steps: monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, tracking of cases, identification of rumors, decision-making by health agencies, communication (cases and bulletins), and dissemination of information to society).

    Results: Of the 2227 studies retrieved based on screening by title, abstract, and full-text reading, 68 (3%) studies were included. The most frequent digital tools used in arbovirus surveillance were apps (n=24, 35%) and Twitter, currently called X (n=22, 32%). These were mostly used to support the traditional surveillance system, strengthening aspects such as information timeliness, acceptability, flexibility, monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, detection and tracking of cases, and simplicity. The use of apps to disseminate information to society (P=.02), communicate (cases and bulletins; P=.01), and simplicity (P=.03) and the use of Twitter to identify rumors (P=.008) were statistically relevant in evaluating scores. This scoping review had some limitations related to the choice of DENV, ZIKV, and CHIKV as arboviruses, due to their clinical and epidemiological importance.

    Conclusions: In the contemporary scenario, it is no longer possible to ignore the use of web data or social media as a complementary strategy to health surveillance. However, it is important that efforts be combined to develop new methods that can ensure the quality of information and the adoption of systematic measures to maintain the integrity and reliability of digital tools’ data, considering ethical aspects.

    J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e57476

    doi:10.2196/57476

    Keywords

    arbovirus infections; dengue; zika virus; chikungunya fever; public health surveillance; digital tool; technology 


    Arboviruses have become relevant public health problems in tropical and subtropical areas due to either socioeconomic or environmental factors, involving inadequate occupation of urban space, poor sanitary conditions, and deforestation [1].

    Dengue, caused by the dengue virus (DENV), is 1 of the most important neglected tropical diseases transmitted by mosquitoes in humans. Since its onset in Southeast Asia in the 1950s, the disease has rapidly spread throughout tropical regions and currently remains a health concern worldwide [2].

    Chikungunya, caused by the chikungunya virus (CHIKV), was first described in 1952 [3] and has been responsible for outbreaks and epidemics in Asia and Africa. Between 2005 and 2007, 266,000 cases were reported in the Reunions Islands, affecting almost 34% of the island’s population [4]. A major outbreak occurred in 2013 with the emergence of an Asian lineage of the virus affecting the Caribbean Saint Martin Island, from where the virus spread to more than 50 countries of the South American continent, leading to over 1 million infections [5]. It is important to highlight the chikungunya disease burden, which includes chronicity, severe infections, increased hospitalization risks, and associated mortality [6].

    Zika was first described in 1947 in nonhuman primates, and infections in humans were sporadic and mild. In 2013-2014, an outbreak occurred in French Polynesia, and severe neurological manifestations were reported [7]. In 2015, cases of congenital microcephaly among pregnant women infected with zika virus (ZIKV) were reported in Brazil. Those findings raised concerns about the infection during pregnancy, and a body of evidence showed the association of ZIKV infection with fetal death, growth restriction, and a series of abnormalities in the fetal central nervous system, as well as microcephaly [8,9].

    The infection scenario caused by arboviruses has pointed to relevant threats to public health in recent years. The cocirculation of the 3 arboviruses (DENV, CHIKV, ZIKV) has imposed major challenges in surveillance and increased the demand for health service support in affected areas [10]. Among the arboviruses, we chose DENV, CHIKV, and ZIKV as they have great medical importance and similar clinical manifestations and as transmission occurs through the same vector, the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Dengue fever has a high incidence in several countries. Chikungunya presents high morbidity, considering the course of the disease in the acute phase, which can lead to chronic symptoms. Zika in pregnant women has an important impact on congenital neurological manifestations, in addition to being an emerging disease.

    The continuous and systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health-related data are part of the scope of public health surveillance. Monitoring of outbreaks and epidemics, tracking of cases, evaluation of interventions, evaluation of rumors, communication (cases and bulletins), and decision-making by health agencies are essential steps for a surveillance system. Therefore, the effectiveness of a surveillance system is directly related to its ability to control diseases [11,12]. However, the rapid development of data science, including big data and artificial intelligence (AI), and the growth of accessible and heterogeneous health-related data are definitely changing the field of health surveillance [13]. The use of technology in health care has increased in recent years. Digital tools, such as apps, digital forms, online chats, video calls, telemedicine, social media, and games, have been used for data collection, case tracking, and disease risk classification [14-16]. Furthermore, the use of big data composing hybrid systems, through the combination of structured and unstructured data, is a promising strategy to collect electronic health records in real time, potentially impacting infectious disease surveillance [17].

    It is noteworthy that public engagement in the digital technological universe is becoming increasingly important worldwide. Therefore, the use of digital tools for arbovirus surveillance seems relevant due to the impact of the diseases and the need for timely and effective control strategies [18].

    This review aimed to assess the available evidence and gather information about the use of digital tools for arbovirus (DENV, ZIKV, and CHIKV) surveillance.


    Study Design

    We conducted a scoping review to systematically map the use of digital tools in arbovirus surveillance [19], defined as technological resources/electronic devices capable of establishing communication between individuals through data sharing [20,21]. Our protocol was elaborated using the Joanna Briggs Institute PRIMSA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1) [19,22]. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework.

    Search

    Data were retrieved from the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCIELO, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. The research question was based on the population, context, concept (PCC) approach [19]: population, digital tools; context, arbovirus surveillance; and concept, use of digital tools to perform surveillance. The following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors were combined: “arbovirus infections,” “dengue,” “zika virus,” “chikungunya fever,” “public health surveillance,” “epidemiological monitoring,” “technology,” “audiovisual aids,” “social media,” “big data,” “mobile apps,” and “social networking.” The search was performed in April 2023 (Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 2).

    Selection, Reading, and Data Extraction

    The selection was independently performed by 2 authors (CLM and LR), and disagreements were resolved by a third author (MDW). The inclusion criterion was defined as studies that described the use of digital tools in arbovirus surveillance.

    First, titles and abstracts returned by the search were read, and the following were excluded: letters, editorials, reviews, case reports, series of cases, descriptive epidemiological studies, laboratory and vaccine studies, economic evaluation studies, and studies that did not clearly describe the use of digital tools in surveillance. Next, potentially eligible studies were read in full, and the same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The online software Rayyan was used for the selection process [23].

    Data from included studies were collected using a standardized data extraction tool designed for this study. The form included the following sections: identification of the study (authors, journal, year of publication, language), studies characteristics (period, study population, place of study), digital tools used, frequency of data collection, objective of the method used for the surveillance of arboviruses, and practical applicability. Data charting was implemented using EpiData 3.1 software.

    The form was tested initially with 5 papers and subsequently subjected to minor adjustments, such as including new data record fields or changes in format to improve information recording. Two reviewers independently collected data from each included paper. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion between the 2 reviewers or by a third reviewer.

    Data Synthesis and Analysis

    A descriptive analysis of the methods and results of using digital tools was carried out based on the attributes for evaluating surveillance systems proposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and on some essential surveillance activities. We used the following attributes: (1) sensitivity (proportion and cases of the disease detected by the surveillance system, ability to detect outbreaks, ability to monitor changes in the number of cases over time), (2) opportunity (speed between the steps of the surveillance system), (3) simplicity (structure and ease of operationalization of the surveillance system), (4) acceptability (willingness of people or organizations to participate in the system), (5) flexibility (ability to adapt to changing information needs and operating conditions with minimal need for time, personnel, and resources), (6) specificity (capacity of the system to exclude “noncases” of the disease), and (7) positive predictive value (PPV: proportion of reported cases that actually have the event under surveillance) [24]. Furthermore, the criteria for evaluating the contributions of digital tools to arbovirus surveillance were applied based on the Epidemiological Surveillance Guide, and the International Health Regulations (IHR) [25,26]. The following surveillance activities were used: monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, tracking of cases, decision-making by health agencies, identification of rumors, communication (cases and bulletins), and dissemination of information to society.

    If the attributes or activities were not clearly mentioned in the study, each independent observer (CLM and LR) imputed the presence or absence according to the CDC definition or according to the performance of the surveillance system. A third observer (MDW) resolved conflicts. A dichotomous variable was created to evaluate the presence or absence of the contribution of digital tools to arbovirus surveillance. An arbitrary value of 2 was assigned when the attributes sensitivity, opportunity, simplicity, acceptability, flexibility, specificity, and PPV were present and 1 if they were absent.

    The sum of the scores of the 7 attributes was calculated for each of the selected studies, and this sum variable was categorized as follows: 7 or 8, unsatisfactory; 9 or 10, moderately satisfactory; 11 or 12, satisfactory; and 13 or 14, very satisfactory. The sum of the scores of the 6 health surveillance activities (monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, tracking of cases, decision-making by health agencies, identification of rumors, communication [cases and bulletins], and dissemination of information to society) was performed for each of the selected studies, and this sum variable was categorized as follows: 6, unsatisfactory; 7 or 8, moderately satisfactory; 9 or 10, satisfactory; and 11 or 12, very satisfactory.

    Next, the percentage of the use of each digital tool in the reviewed studies was calculated. The frequency with which the 7 health surveillance attributes and 6 activities were present in the included studies was also calculated according to the use of digital tools (Multimedia Appendices 3 and 4).

    The mean (SD) and P value of the sum attributed to the score of each axis were calculated: 7 surveillance system attributes and 6 health surveillance activities according to the digital tools that were used with the greatest value absolute in the included studies (apps, Twitter, Google Trends, and big data), with the aim of identifying whether the groups had a statistically significant difference. Subsequently, we compared the means using ANOVA for the aforementioned digital tools according to the 2 axes to verify the difference between them.

    We used R software version 4.3.1 (summarytools package for descriptive analysis, dplyr package for working with dataframes, and MASS and car native R packages for ANOVA; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) to perform data analysis.


    Study Characteristics

    The search strategy retrieved 2227 studies; after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 68 (3%) studies in the review (Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

    The characteristics of the studies included are outlined in Multimedia Appendix 5. Of the 68 studies, 50% (n=34) were performed in Asia, 16% (n=11) in North America, and 9% (n=6) in Europe or Central America. In addition, 32% (n=22) of the studies were performed in South America, with 17 (77%) of these in Brazil. Dengue was addressed in 50 (74%) studies, followed by zika (n=21, 31%) and chikungunya (n=9, 13%); 6 (9%) studies addressed the 3 arboviruses simultaneously.

    The digital tools most studied were apps (n=24, 35%); Twitter, currently called X (n=22, 32%); Google Trends (n=7, 10%); and big data (n=6, 9%). Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Flirck, Sina Weibo, and blogs) was used in 37% (n=25) of the studies.

    The time range between health data collection and dissemination of information was defined by the studies as real time (n=48, 71%), near real time (n=2, 3%), yearly (n=1, 2%), weekly (n=7, 10%), daily (n=8, 12%), other (n=1, 2%), and not clearly described (n=9, 13%), as shown in Multimedia Appendix 5.

    Data from digital tools were compared with official data in 16 (24%) studies: [27-42]. Of these, 12 (75%) studies [27,29,31,33-40,42] showed statistically significant correlations (P<.05) or strong correlations between official and unofficial data coming from online trends, social media, or big data, of which 6 (50%) addressed the use of Twitter data.

    In addition, 21 (31%) studies [28,29,32,34,35,43-58] developed predictions, forecasts, detection of reemergent events, and early warning models, while 7 (10%) studies [44,59-64] presented results regarding the use of digital tools to design a participatory syndromic surveillance system, and 32 (47%) studies evaluated the use of digital tools for several surveillance activities: prevention and control of arboviruses [40,51,59,65-82], content analysis and rumors [83-91], and mitigation of the lack of epidemiological data in surveillance systems [92,93].

    Most studies presented an enhancement in opportunity (n=63, 93%), flexibility (n= 57, 84%), sensitivity (n=63, 93%), and simplicity (n=46, 68%) indicators. In addition, 18 (26%) studies [28,32,39,41,43,45,47,50,52,56,58-60,65,70,79,83,92] presented an enhancement in the ability of the system to exclude “noncases” of the disease (specificity) and the proportion of reported cases that actually had the event under surveillance (PPV).

    Furthermore, 63 (93%) studies addressed the monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, and 60 (88%) studies addressed case tracking. More than half of the studies improved decision-making by health agencies (n=43, 63%) and communication (cases and bulletins; n=40, 59%). Dissemination of information to society and identification of rumors were addressed in 29 (43%) studies.

    The use of apps in surveillance enhanced the following indicators: opportunity (n=22, 92%), sensitivity (n=21, 88%), simplicity (n=21, 88%), acceptability (n=19, 79%), and flexibility (n=19, 79%). Furthermore, 23 (34%) studies showed that the use of apps enhanced the monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics (n=22, 96%), the tracking of cases (n=21, 92%), decision-making by health agencies (n=17, 74%), and the availability of information for society (n=14, 61%) [38,44-48,50,57,60-62,64-66,71-74,76,77,79-81,94]. Figure 1 illustrates health surveillance system attributes and contributions to health surveillance activities according to use of apps and Twitter in the 68 studies.

    Of the 24 (35%) studies that mentioned the use of apps, 11 (46%) were evaluated as very satisfactory and 9 (38%) as satisfactory according to surveillance activity enhancement. In addition, 7 (29%) studies were very satisfactory and 14 (58%) were satisfactory when surveillance indicators were assessed. No study that mentioned the use of apps was evaluated as unsatisfactory.

    Among the studies that addressed the use of Twitter (n=22, 32%) [27,29,30,32,35-37,41,42,49,51,63,75,82-84,86,88-92], 19 (86%) described an increase in speed between the steps of the surveillance system (opportunity) and the ability to adapt to changing information needs, while 18 (82%) described operating conditions with minimal need for time, personnel, and resources (flexibility). More than 12 (55%) studies that addressed the use of Twitter described an enhancement in system sensitivity, and 12 (55%) described the ease of operation and the willingness of people or organizations to participate in the system (acceptability). Less than 7 (32%) studies pointed out an enhancement to system specificity and the PPV.

    Furthermore, 18 (82%) studies that addressed the use of Twitter described enhancement in monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics. Of these, 11 (61%) studies described an increase in communication (cases and bulletins) and decision-making by health agencies. In addition, 15 (68%) addressed the identification of rumors, while dissemination of information to society was mentioned in 6 (27%) of the studies (Figure 1).

    Of the 22 studies that addressed the use of Twitter, 7 (32%) were evaluated as very satisfactory and 9 (41%) were satisfactory regarding surveillance activities. In addition, 6 (27%) studies were very satisfactory, 11 (50%) were satisfactory, 4 (18%) were moderately satisfactory, and 1 (5%) was unsatisfactory according to the analysis of surveillance system indicators.

    Studies that reported the use of Google Trends (n=7, 10%) enhanced the following indicators: simplicity, sensitivity, flexibility, and opportunity. Furthermore, 6 (86%) studies enhanced the monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics and tracking of cases.

    Studies that reported the use of big data (n=6, 9%) [28,30,37,43,51,93] assessed sensitivity and flexibility of the surveillance system, as well as opportunity (speed between the surveillance system steps). All of them contributed to the monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics. Additionally, 3 (50%) studies [30,43,93] addressed decision-making by health agencies.

    A total of 27 (40%) studies [27,33,39-41,47,48,50,53,56, 57,61-64,67,71-73,75,79,82,85,87,91,94] were rated as very satisfactory regarding surveillance activities and addressed the use of the following digital tools: apps, Twitter, game platforms, web-based digital tools, Facebook, Google Trends, Google News, Wikipedia, and Sina Weibo. Of these, 19 (70%) investigated dengue, 7 (26%) investigated zika, and 1 (4%) addressed diarrheal syndrome, respiratory syndrome, arboviral syndrome, chikungunya, zika, and influenza.

    In addition, 15 (22%) studies [27,29,36,45,50,52,59-61, 65,72,79,84,90,92] were classified as very satisfactory regarding surveillance system indicators and reported the use of the following digital tools: apps, Twitter, Google Trends, Google News, blogs, Wikipedia, telepidemiological surveillance, eletronic bracelets, Google Maps, drones, and the GPS.

    In comparing the means of the sums of health surveillance system activities, there was a difference between apps, Twitter, Google Trends, and big data. The activities communication (cases and bulletins; P=.01), dissemination of information to society (P=.02), and identification of rumors (P=.008) showed a statistically significant difference (Table 1).

    In comparing the means of the sums of health surveillance system attributes, there was a difference between apps, Twitter, Google Trends, and big data (Table 2).

    However, the attribute simplicity (P=.03) showed a statistically significant difference.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Health surveillance activities and surveillance system indicators according to the use of apps and Twitter.
    Table 1. ANOVA of health surveillance activity scores.
    Health surveillance system activityApps (n=24), mean (SD)Big data (n=6), mean (SD)Google Trends (n=7), mean (SD)Twitter (n=22), mean (SD)P valuea
    Decision-making by health agencies1.7 (0.5)1.5 (0.5)1.4 (0.5)1.5 (0.5).31
    Communication: cases and bulletins1.7 (0.5)1.0 (0.0)1.7 (0.5)1.5 (0.5).01
    Dissemination of information to society1.6 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.1 (0.4)1.3 (0.4).02
    Outbreak or epidemic monitoring2.0 (0.2)2.0 (0.0)1.9 (0.4)1.8 (0.4).36
    Rumor identification1.2 (0.4)1.2 (0.4)1.3 (0.5)1.7 (0.5).008
    Case tracking1.9 (0.3)2.0 (0.0)1.9 (0.4)1.8 (0.4)0.6

    aP values (ANOVA) of health surveillance system activities considering the use of digital tools (apps, big data, Google Trends, and Twitter).

    Table 2. ANOVA of health surveillance system attribute scores.
    Health surveillance system attributeApps (n=24), mean (SD)Big data (n=6), mean (SD)Google Trends (n=7), mean (SD)Twitter (n=22), mean (SD)P valuea
    Sensitivity1.9 (0.3)2.0 (0.0)2.0 (0.0)1.9 (0.2).94
    Specificity1.8 (0.4)1.7 (0.5)1.2 (0.5)1.2 (0.4).64
    Opportunity1.9 (0.3)2.0 (0.0)2.0 (0.0)1.8 (0.4).88
    Flexibility1.8 (0.4)1.7 (0.5)2.0 (0.0)1.9 (0.3).82
    Acceptability1.8 (0.4)1.3 (0.5)1.2 (0.4)1.5 (0.5).12
    PPVb1.3 (0.5)1.3 (0.5)1.0 (0.0)1.4 (0.5).67
    Simplicity1.8 (0.4)1.0 (0.0)1.8 (0.4)1.5 (0.5).03

    aP value (ANOVA) of health surveillance system attributes considering the use of digital tools (apps, big data, Google Trends, and Twitter).

    bPPV: positive predictive value.


    Principal Findings

    This scoping review demonstrated different approaches for the use of digital tools to prevent and control arboviruses. The use of apps and Twitter in surveillance revealed the best results.

    Due to the extensive health crisis caused by COVID-19, health agencies around the world have concentrated efforts to adopt strategies aimed at providing reliable information for the population, detecting symptoms, providing first care in suspected cases, and supporting the detection of new cases and laboratory diagnosis using apps [95]. Therefore, the use of apps has proved to be beneficial, not only for surveillance, but also as a valuable aid in dealing with public health emergencies. Initiatives in Brazil, such as the COVID-19 observatory, Infogripe, and Infodengue, are used to monitor and to inform society about health problems online. In our review, 88% of the studies used a digital tool for tracking cases or monitoring arbovirus outbreaks, and most of them used social media data or apps, which is in line with the measures adopted in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, our review showed a higher score for apps, indicating statistical relevance in the use of apps to disseminate information to society (P=.02), communication (cases and bulletins; P=.01), and ease of operationalization of the surveillance system (P=.03), with the highest means in the evaluation of scores.

    Of the 24 studies that mentioned the use of apps, 96% pointed to monitoring outbreaks or epidemics and 92% mentioned tracking cases. In agreement, a systematic review conducted by Quinn et al [96] evaluated studies of web-based apps, indicator-based surveillance, and the response to communicable disease outbreaks. Their review highlighted the use of apps to improve the early detection of disease outbreaks and disease notification, as well as the active participation of users; however, they indicated a low PPV [96]. As we also observed in our review, the use of apps in arbovirus surveillance contributes either to the opportunity and ease of operationalization of the surveillance system and case detection or to a reduction in costs. Furthermore, in our review, 62% of the studies underlined the availability of information (data) in real time, which implies the triggering of timely actions with an impact on prevention and control measures. It is even more important to have real-time data in an epidemic or pandemic situation, when information and data sources need to be available in a timely manner for the implementation of infection control measures and minimization of risk factors associated with the health of the population [97].

    The correlation analysis between unofficial data from social media and official data of arbovirus surveillance may be helpful to assess the potential use of nonofficial data. Twitter data on influenza was monitored for a year in the United States. Data were collected and processed based on geographic information science (GIS) and data mining and then compared with official data from national, regional, and local reports of disease outbreaks. This correlation revealed strong statistical relevance between the data sources [98]. Samaras et al [99] reported the feasibility of building an early detection and forecasting system for influenza epidemics with data from Twitter and Google search engines. This process took place in real time for 23 weeks, and the data collected from the digital tools were compared with official data. The results pointed to a high correlation with Google data and to the usefulness of Twitter data. In our review, 12 studies [27,29,31,33-40,42] showed a statistically significant correlation (P<.05) or strong correlation between official data of arbovirus surveillance and unofficial data from online trends, social media, or big data. Of these, more than half addressed the use of Twitter data. However, data collection and processing are crucial steps that require investment in appropriate techniques. One study showed the correlation was positive and statistically significant but with several limitations [41].

    Our data showed good results regarding the use of Twitter according to either surveillance activities or surveillance system indicators. Twitter was used to propose a framework to explore online data sources to mitigate the lack of epidemiological data, assess digital behaviors and complex interaction between new data streams induced by the chikungunya outbreak, identify public health problems during a dengue epidemic, identify rumors, track and monitor cases, and support arbovirus case prediction and early warning models.

    The phenomenon of misinformation and fake news became notorious during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the use of social media intensified. The sharing of fake news is a social problem that threatens public health. Jain [100] proposed an entropy approach to identify and monitor rumors related to COVID-19 based on shared tweets. In our review, the use of Twitter to identify rumors was statistically relevant in evaluating scores (P=.008), presenting a higher mean compared to other digital tools.

    Moreover, our data showed 21 studies [28,29,32,34,35,43-58] that developed early warning models and enhanced the prediction, forecast, and detection of remergent events. The authors reported the use of apps, big data, Twitter, Google Trends, AI, the internet of things (IoT), and statistical models with algorithm adjustment to predict arbovirus cases. One study [29] presented the possibility of predicting dengue cases up to 8 weeks in advance using data from Twitter, Google Trends, and Wikipedia. In addition, the authors addressed the use of apps with geospatial and meteorological information capable of detecting and predicting possible breeding sites of the mosquito vector, predicting dengue outbreaks, generating detailed reports, and providing users with health education about dengue. Applications of fog computing were also discussed, as well as a model capable of merging large volumes of data through big data to generate early warnings. The use of Google Trends was also reported to predict the COVID-19 outbreak in India 2-3 weeks before routine surveillance [101]. Furthermore, our review showed that the use of Google Trends in arbovirus surveillance can facilitate operationalization of the surveillance system (P=.03), with the highest means in the evaluation of scores.

    AI algorithms play a key role in rapidly predicting, detecting, classifying, sorting, and diagnosing an infection. An AI-based system is capable of accurately predicting changes in human behavior, contributing to the detection of and response to epidemic risks [102,103]. In this scoping review, one study [55] used AI and IoT as an approach to collect data and predict future situations and support preparedness and response.

    Considering that we live in the big data era, and that society is increasingly connected, the use of data available on the web has been growing in several areas, although there is criticism regarding their use. The use of open, nonstructured data to obtain health outcomes requires not only the storage and processing of large volumes of data but also methodological concerns [104,105]. The balance regarding the quantity versus the quality of data remains a challenge. Nevertheless, statistical methods are being rapidly developed to meet public health demands based on the analysis of large volumes of data. The combination of data is a resource that expands the analysis capacity of a system, and this area of epidemiology is increasingly leading this scenario [105,106]. A strategy for expanding the use of social media in the surveillance area would be the “data science–based approach,” encompassing multidisciplinary teams, and “app of techniques,” with machine learning algorithms and natural language processing (NLP). In our review, the use of big data was addressed in 6 studies [28,30,37,43,51,93] that combined data from social media for tracking cases, monitoring outbreaks or epidemics, disseminating information to society, and identifying children with incomplete immunization. Moreover, the use of big data contributed to decision-making by health agencies and to prevention and control measures concerning emerging and reemerging infectious diseases.

    The use of unofficial data from the internet and social media in surveillance has some limitations, such as information overload as well as uncertain quality and validity of data for surveillance purposes. Therefore, more evidence is needed regarding the efficacy and assessment of integrated systems. The phenomenon of information overload could be mitigated by investing in automated technology for monitoring health-related internet-based data so that these strategies could be adopted within the health surveillance system [105,107]. Leal et al [104] argued that in Brazil, there is an immediate lack of technological incorporation to reduce information time and improve the means used in the surveillance routine, which harms the “information for action” issue, the hallmark of public health surveillance.

    Although searches by web sources are in continuous growth, it is important to emphasize that digital inclusion is limited worldwide [108]. The mitigation of biases related to the representativeness digital vehicles data is a complex process. Data about a certain disease may be underrepresented in Twitter due to the lack of digital coverage in different locations [106]. Thus, an important point to consider is the inequality of internet access to the population, which can limit the implementation of digital health surveillance strategies [109].

    The validation of data through statistical techniques and other approaches is desirable to increase the reliability of the data and their use in the decision-making process for action [12]. It is important to emphasize the relevance of regulation of the use of data from digital tools to ensure the protection of the participant, especially the ethical aspects involved, even if they are available in the social networks [110].

    Investment in innovation, technology, and digital tools in the routine of health surveillance is essential, especially as we are experiencing exponential technological advances and an increase in public health demands [111]. However, there is a major methodological challenge in validating information collected from unofficial sources. Additionally, it is necessary to review the regulations to support alternative and complementary surveillance systems, as described.

    Limitations

    Our scoping review has some limitations related to the choice of the arboviruses DENV, ZIKV, and CHIKV, due to their clinical and epidemiological importance. Furthermore, there are some limitations regarding the assessment of accessibility and digital inclusion of the populations studied. However, these issues were not found in the included studies, despite the search including 6 databases and gray literature, without language and period restrictions.

    Conclusion

    Our review outlined the use of several digital tools for arbovirus surveillance, with emphasis on the use of apps and Twitter in surveillance. These tools can contribute to surveillance in a complementary way and strengthen the following aspects: dissemination of information to society, rumor identification, information opportunity, acceptability of users to participate in the system, capacity to adapt to new epidemiological situations, monitoring of outbreaks or epidemics, case detection and tracking, operationalization of the system, and reduction in costs.

    In the contemporary scenario, it is no longer possible to ignore the use of web data or social media as a complementary strategy to health surveillance. However, it is important that efforts be combined to develop new methods that can ensure the quality of information and the adoption of systematic measures to maintain the integrity and reliability of digital tools’ data, considering ethical aspects.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank the Professional Master Program in Clinical Research at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, where the first author developed the study to obtain their master’s degree.

    Data Availability

    The data sets used during the study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

    Authors' Contributions

    CLM and MDW conceived the study. CLM, LRMN, and MDW performed the review steps. CLM and DPP conceived the analysis. MDW and LG supervised the analysis. CLM, LG, and MDW were involved in manuscript preparation. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and PRISMA flow diagram.

    DOCX File , 96 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search strategy.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 287 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Health surveillance activities according to the use of digital tools.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 225 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Health surveillance system attributes according to the use of digital tools.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 226 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    General characteristics of studies on the use of digital tools for surveillance.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 29 KB
    1. Lorenz C, Azevedo TS, Virginio F, Aguiar BS, Chiaravalloti-Neto F, Suesdek L. Impact of environmental factors on neglected emerging arboviral diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. Sep 27, 2017;11(9):e0005959. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Guzman MG, Gubler DJ, Izquierdo A, Martinez E, Halstead SB. Dengue infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers. Aug 18, 2016;2(1):16055. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Robinson MC. An epidemic of virus disease in Southern Province, Tanganyika Territory, in 1952-53. I. Clinical features. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. Jan 1955;49(1):28-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Schuffenecker I, Iteman I, Michault A, Murri S, Frangeul L, Vaney M, et al. Genome microevolution of chikungunya viruses causing the Indian Ocean outbreak. PLoS Med. Jul 23, 2006;3(7):e263. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Bartholomeeusen K, Daniel M, LaBeaud DA, Gasque P, Peeling RW, Stephenson KE, et al. Chikungunya fever. Nat Rev Dis Primers. Apr 06, 2023;9(1):17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Costa LB, Barreto FKDA, Barreto MCA, Santos THPD, Andrade MDMOD, Farias LABG, et al. Epidemiology and economic burden of chikungunya: a systematic literature review. Trop Med Infect Dis. May 31, 2023;8(6):301. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Musso D, Gubler DJ. Zika virus. Clin Microbiol Rev. Jul 2016;29(3):487-524. [CrossRef]
    8. Brasil P, Pereira JP, Moreira ME, Ribeiro Nogueira RM, Damasceno L, Wakimoto M, et al. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro. N Engl J Med. Dec 15, 2016;375(24):2321-2334. [CrossRef]
    9. de Araújo TVB, Rodrigues LC, de Alencar Ximenes RA, de Barros Miranda-Filho D, Montarroyos UR, de Melo APL, et al. Association between zika virus infection and microcephaly in Brazil, January to May, 2016: preliminary report of a case-control study. Lancet Infect Dis. Dec 2016;16(12):1356-1363. [CrossRef]
    10. BIREME. Pan American Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://www.paho.org/en/bireme [accessed 2023-09-03]
    11. Wilder-Smith A, Gubler DJ, Weaver SC, Monath TP, Heymann DL, Scott TW. Epidemic arboviral diseases: priorities for research and public health. Lancet Infect Dis. Mar 2017;17(3):e101-e106. [CrossRef]
    12. Chiolero A, Buckeridge D. Glossary for public health surveillance in the age of data science. J Epidemiol Community Health. Jun 24, 2020;74(7):612-616. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Surveillance in emergencies. World Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/surveillance [accessed 2023-09-03]
    14. Celuppi I, Lima GDS, Rossi E, Wazlawick R, Dalmarco E. Uma análise sobre o desenvolvimento de tecnologias digitais em saúde para o enfrentamento da COVID-19 no Brasil e no mundo. Cad Saúde Pública. Mar 12, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00243220 [accessed 2023-09-05]
    15. Novoa C, Netto A. Fundamentos em gestão e informática em saúde Internet. UNIFESP - Departamento de Informática em Saúde. 2019. URL: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/51788 [accessed 2023-09-05]
    16. Zamora A, Galán-Rodas E, Ramírez E, Rodríguez-Morales AJ, Mayta-Tristán P. Videojuego pueblo pitanga en la lucha contra el dengue en Costa Rica. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. Jun 19, 2015;32(2):397. [CrossRef]
    17. Simonsen L, Gog JR, Olson D, Viboud C. Infectious disease surveillance in the big data era: towards faster and locally relevant systems. J Infect Dis. Dec 01, 2016;214(suppl_4):S380-S385. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Siddiqui TR, Ghazal S, Bibi S, Ahmed W, Sajjad SF. Use of the Health Belief Model for the assessment of public knowledge and household preventive practices in Karachi, Pakistan, a dengue-endemic city. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. Nov 10, 2016;10(11):e0005129. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 19, 2018;18(1):143. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Salathé M, Bengtsson L, Bodnar TJ, Brewer DD, Brownstein JS, Buckee C, et al. Digital epidemiology. PLoS Comput Biol. Jul 2012;8(7):e1002616. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Salathé M. Digital epidemiology: what is it, and where is it going? Life Sci Soc Policy. Jan 04, 2018;14(1):1. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. Oct 2020;18(10):2119-2126. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. Dec 05, 2016;5(1):210. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5013a1.htm [accessed 2023-09-03]
    25. Guia de Vigilância Epidemiológica - 7 edição. Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde Ministério da Saúde. 2009. URL: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/guia_vigilancia_epidemiologica_7ed [accessed 2023-12-16]
    26. Regulamento Sanitário Internacional (2005). 1. ed. Organização Mundial de Saúde. 2009. URL: https:/​/www.​gov.br/​anvisa/​pt-br/​assuntos/​paf/​regulamento-sanitario-internacional/​arquivos/​7181json-file-1 [accessed 2023-12-16]
    27. Antunes M, Silva C, Guimaraes C, Rabaco M. Social media monitoring: the dengue e-monitor. TransInformação. Jan 1, 2014;26:9-18.
    28. Lee C, Yang H, Lin S. Incorporating big data and social sensors in a novel early warning system of dengue outbreaks. 2015. Presented at: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). Paris, France, , pp. 1428?33; 2015; Paris, France. [CrossRef]
    29. Marques-Toledo CDA, Degener CM, Vinhal L, Coelho G, Meira W, Codeço CT, et al. Dengue prediction by the web: tweets are a useful tool for estimating and forecasting dengue at country and city level. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. Jul 18, 2017;11(7):e0005729. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Carlos MA, Nogueira M, Machado RJ. Analysis of dengue outbreaks using big data analytics and social networks. 2017. Presented at: 4th International Conference on Systems and Informatics (ICSAI); November 1, 2017:1592-1597; Hangzhou, China. [CrossRef]
    31. Husnayain A, Fuad A, Lazuardi L. Correlation between Google Trends on dengue fever and national surveillance report in Indonesia. Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1552652. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. McGough SF, Brownstein JS, Hawkins JB, Santillana M. Forecasting zika incidence in the 2016 Latin America outbreak combining traditional disease surveillance with search, social media, and news report data. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. Jan 2017;11(1):e0005295. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Adebayo G, Neumark Y, Gesser-Edelsburg A, Abu Ahmad W, Levine H. Zika pandemic online trends, incidence and health risk communication: a time trend study. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(3):e000296. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Teng Y, Bi D, Xie G, Jin Y, Huang Y, Lin B, et al. Dynamic forecasting of zika epidemics using Google Trends. PLoS One. Jan 6, 2017;12(1):e0165085. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Masri S, Jia J, Li C, Zhou G, Lee M, Yan G, et al. Use of Twitter data to improve zika virus surveillance in the United States during the 2016 epidemic. BMC Public Health. Jun 14, 2019;19(1):761. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Mahroum N, Adawi M, Sharif K, Waknin R, Mahagna H, Bisharat B, et al. Public reaction to chikungunya outbreaks in Italy-insights from an extensive novel data streams-based structural equation modeling analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197337. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Klein GH, Guidi Neto P, Tezza R. Big data e mídias sociais: monitoramento das redes como ferramenta de gestão. Saude Soc. Mar 2017;26(1):208-217. [CrossRef]
    38. Rodriguez-Valero N, Luengo Oroz M, Cuadrado Sanchez D, Vladimirov A, Espriu M, Vera I, et al. Mobile based surveillance platform for detecting zika virus among Spanish delegates attending the Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games. PLoS One. Aug 22, 2018;13(8):e0201943. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Monnaka VU, de Oliveira CAC. Google Trends correlation and sensitivity for outbreaks of dengue and yellow fever in the state of São Paulo. Einstein (São Paulo). Aug 2021;19:eAO5969. [CrossRef]
    40. Provenzano S, Gianfredi V, Santangelo OE. Insight the data: Wikipedia's researches and real cases of arboviruses in Italy. Public Health. Mar 2021;192:21-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Coberly JS, Fink CR, Elbert Y, Yoon IK, Velasco JM, Tomayao AD, et al. Tweeting fever: can twitter be used to monitor the incidence of dengue-like illness in the Philippines? Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. 2014. URL: https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V32-N04/32-04-Coberly.pdf [accessed 2024-11-02]
    42. Gomide J, Veloso A, Meira W, Almeida V, Benevenuto F, Ferraz F. Dengue surveillance based on a computational model of spatio-temporal locality of Twitter. 2011. Presented at: WebSci '11: 3rd International Web Science Conference; June 15-17, 2011; Koblenz, Germany. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2527031.2527049 [CrossRef]
    43. Othman MK, Danuri MSNM. Proposed conceptual framework of Dengue Active Surveillance System (DASS) in Malaysia. 2016. Presented at: 2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM); 2016:90-96; Kuala Lumpur, Malasya. [CrossRef]
    44. Leal-Neto OB, Dimech GS, Libel M, de Souza WV, Cesse E, Smolinski M, et al. Saúde na Copa: the world’s first application of participatory surveillance for a mass gathering at FIFA World Cup 2014, Brazil. JMIR Public Health Surveill. May 04, 2017;3(2):e26. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Kassim M, Ali N, Idris A, Shahbudin S, Rahman R. Dengue attack analysis system on mobile application. 2018. Presented at: 2018 IEEE 8th International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET); October 15-16, 2018:151-156; Bandung, Indonesia. [CrossRef]
    46. Ibrahim N, Keong T. Development of aedes-entomological predictive analytical dashboard application. 2018. Presented at: 2018 Seventh ICT International Student Project Conference (ICT-ISPC); 2018:1-5; Nakhonpathom, Thailand. [CrossRef]
    47. Asat A, Mahat A, Hassan R, Mohamed SAA. Development of dengue detection and prevention system (Deng-E) based upon open data in Malaysia. 2107. Presented at: 2017 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI); 2017:1-6; Langkawi, Malaysia. [CrossRef]
    48. Babu AN, Niehaus E, Shah S, Unnithan C, Ramkumar PS, Shah J, et al. Smartphone geospatial apps for dengue control, prevention, prediction, and education: MOSapp, DISapp, and the mosquito perception index (MPI). Environ Monit Assess. Jun 28, 2019;191(Suppl 2):393. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Marques-Toledo CA, Bendati MM, Codeço CT, Teixeira MM. Probability of dengue transmission and propagation in a non-endemic temperate area: conceptual model and decision risk levels for early alert, prevention and control. Parasit Vectors. Jan 16, 2019;12(1):38. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Somboonsak P. Development innovation to predict dengue affected area and alert people with smartphones. Int J Online Biomed Eng IJOE. Feb 12, 2020;16(02):62-79. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    51. Rocklöv J, Tozan Y, Ramadona A, Sewe MO, Sudre B, Garrido J, et al. Using big data to monitor the introduction and spread of chikungunya, Europe, 2017. Emerg Infect Dis. Jun 2019;25(6):1041-1049. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Polanco González C, Islas Vazquez I, Castañón González JA, Buhse T, Arias-Estrada M. Electronic devices that identify individuals with fever in crowded places: a prototype. Micromachines (Basel). Jun 24, 2017;8(7):202. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Guo P, Zhang Q, Chen Y, Xiao J, He J, Zhang Y, et al. An ensemble forecast model of dengue in Guangzhou, China using climate and social media surveillance data. Sci Total Environ. Jan 10, 2019;647:752-762. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Massaro E, Kondor D, Ratti C. Assessing the interplay between human mobility and mosquito borne diseases in urban environments. Sci Rep. Nov 15, 2019;9(1):16911. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Rahman MS, Safa NT, Sultana S, Salam S, Karamehic-Muratovic A, Overgaard HJ. Role of artificial intelligence-internet of things (AI-IoT) based emerging technologies in the public health response to infectious diseases in Bangladesh. Parasite Epidemiol Control. Aug 2022;18:e00266. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Parikh N, Daughton A, Rosenberger W, Aberle D, Chitanvis M, Altherr F, et al. Improving detection of disease re-emergence using a web-based tool (RED Alert): design and case analysis study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Jan 07, 2021;7(1):e24132. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Herbuela VRDM, Karita T, Carvajal TM, Ho HT, Lorena JMO, Regalado RA, et al. Early detection of dengue fever outbreaks using a surveillance app (Mozzify): cross-sectional mixed methods usability study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Mar 01, 2021;7(3):e19034. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Cardenas R, Hussain-Alkhateeb L, Benitez-Valladares D, Sánchez-Tejeda G, Kroeger A. The Early Warning and Response System (EWARS-TDR) for dengue outbreaks: can it also be applied to chikungunya and zika outbreak warning? BMC Infect Dis. Mar 07, 2022;22(1):235. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Galván P, Cane V, Samudio M, Cabello A, Cabral M, Basogain X, et al. [Implementation of a community tele-epidemiological surveillance system using information and communication technologies in Paraguay]. Rev Panam Salud Publica. Jun 1, 2014;35(5/6):353-358. [FREE Full text]
    60. Olson D, Lamb M, Lopez MR, Colborn K, Paniagua-Avila A, Zacarias A, et al. Performance of a mobile phone app-based participatory syndromic surveillance system for acute febrile illness and acute gastroenteritis in rural Guatemala. J Med Internet Res. Nov 09, 2017;19(11):e368. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Leal-Neto OB, Cruz O, Albuquerque J, Nacarato de Sousa M, Smolinski M, Pessoa Cesse E, et al. Participatory surveillance based on crowdsourcing during the Rio 2016 Olympic Games using the Guardians of Health platform: descriptive study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Apr 07, 2020;6(2):e16119. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Ruiz-Burga E, Bruijning-Verhagen P, Palmer P, Sandcroft A, Fernandes G, de Hoog M, et al. ZIKAction Consortium. Detection of potential arbovirus infections and pregnancy complications in pregnant women in Jamaica using a smartphone app (ZIKApp): pilot evaluation study. JMIR Form Res. Jul 27, 2022;6(7):e34423. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Espina K, Estuar MRJE. Infodemiology for syndromic surveillance of dengue and typhoid fever in the Philippines. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017;121:554-561. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    64. Lwin M, Vijaykumar S, Fernando O, Cheong S, Rathnayake V, Lim G, et al. A 21st century approach to tackling dengue: crowdsourced surveillance, predictive mapping and tailored communication. Acta Trop. Feb 2014;130:100-107. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Lwin MO, Vijaykumar S, Rathnayake VS, Lim G, Panchapakesan C, Foo S, et al. A social media mHealth solution to address the needs of dengue prevention and management in Sri Lanka. J Med Internet Res. Jul 01, 2016;18(7):e149. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Lwin MO, Jayasundar K, Sheldenkar A, Wijayamuni R, Wimalaratne P, Ernst KC, et al. Lessons from the implementation of Mo-Buzz, a mobile pandemic surveillance system for dengue. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Oct 02, 2017;3(4):e65. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Lima T, Barbosa B, Niquini C, Araujo C, Lana R. Playing against dengue design and development of a serious game to help tackling dengue. 2017. Presented at: IEEE 5th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH); April 2-4 2017; Perth, WA. URL: http://www.segah.org/2017/docs/Papers/Poster%20Session/P-PS-08-40.pdf [CrossRef]
    68. Lima TFM. A game-based platform to tackle a public health problem. 2018. Presented at: 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion (CHI PLAY ’18); October 28-31, 2018:17-25; Melbourne, VIC. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3270605 [CrossRef]
    69. Sreeram S, Shanmugam L. Autonomous robotic system based environmental assessment and dengue hot-spot identification. 2018. Presented at: IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe); 2018:1-6; Palermo, Italy. [CrossRef]
    70. Singh S, Bansal A, Sandhu R, Sidhu J. Fog computing and IoT based healthcare support service for dengue fever. IJPCC. Jun 04, 2018;14(2):197-207. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    71. Lwin M, Sheldenkar A, Panchapakesan C, Ng J, Lau J, Jayasundar K, et al. Epihack Sri Lanka: development of a mobile surveillance tool for dengue fever. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. Jun 13, 2019;19(1):111. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Minhas K, Tabassam M, Rasheed R, Abbas A, Khattak H, Khan S. A framework for dengue surveillance and data collection in Pakistan. 2019. Presented at: IEEE 43rd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC); July 15-19, 2019:275-280; Milwaukee, WI. [CrossRef]
    73. Lwin M, Ng J, Jayasundar K, Kensinger A, Tan S. Visual design for a mobile pandemic map system for public health. AI Soc. Jan 18, 2020;36(4):1349-1360. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    74. Idriani E, Rahmaniati MM, Kurniawan R. Dengue surveillance information system: an Android-based early warning system for the outbreak of Dengue in Padang, Indonesia. Ind J Public Health Res Dev. 2019;10(5):1386. [CrossRef]
    75. Souza RC, Assunção RM, Oliveira DM, Neill DB, Meira W. Where did I get dengue? Detecting spatial clusters of infection risk with social network data. Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. Jun 2019;29:163-175. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Berbudi A, Sujatmiko B, Wiraswati HL, Rohmawaty E. The potential use of open data kit application for the mosquito larvae monitoring program to control dengue vector in Indonesia. Biosci Biotech Res Comm. Mar 30, 2020;13(1):79-83. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    77. Herbuela VRDM, Karita T, Francisco ME, Watanabe K. An integrated mHealth app for dengue reporting and mapping, health communication, and behavior modification: development and assessment of Mozzify. JMIR Form Res. Jan 08, 2020;4(1):e16424. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Sareen S, Sood SK, Gupta SK. Secure internet of things-based cloud framework to control zika virus outbreak. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. Apr 24, 2017;33(1):11-18. [CrossRef]
    79. Beltran J, Boscor A, dos SW, Massoni T, Kostkova P. Zika: a new system to empower health workers and local communities to improve surveillance protocols by e-learning and to forecast zika virus in real time in Brazil. 2018. Presented at: DH '18: 2018 International Conference on Digital Health; April 23-26, 2018:90; Lyon, France. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3194658.3194683 [CrossRef]
    80. Ocampo CB, Mina NJ, Echavarria MI, Acuña M, Caballero A, Navarro A, et al. VECTOS: an integrated system for monitoring risk factors associated with urban arbovirus transmission. Glob Health Sci Pract. Mar 29, 2019;7(1):128-137. [CrossRef]
    81. Rodríguez S, Sanz A, Llano G, Navarro A, Parra-Lara L, Krystosik A, et al. Acceptability and usability of a mobile application for management and surveillance of vector-borne diseases in Colombia: an implementation study. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233269. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Amin S, Uddin M, alSaeed D, Khan A, Adnan M. Early detection of seasonal outbreaks from Twitter data using machine learning approaches. Complexity. Mar 15, 2021;2021(3):1-12. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    83. Gong J, Li S, Lee J. Space, time, and disease on social media: a case study of dengue fever in China. Geomatica. Dec 01, 2018;72(4):112-126. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    84. Shahid F, Ony SH, Albi TR, Chellappan S, Vashistha A, Islam ABMAA. Learning from tweets: opportunities and challenges to inform policy making during dengue epidemic. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. May 29, 2020;4(CSCW1):1-27. [CrossRef]
    85. Vijaykumar S, Meurzec RW, Jayasundar K, Pagliari C, Fernandopulle Y. What's buzzing on your feed? Health authorities' use of Facebook to combat Zika in Singapore. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Nov 01, 2017;24(6):1155-1159. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Miller M, Banerjee T, Muppalla R, Romine W, Sheth A. What are people tweeting about zika? An exploratory study concerning its symptoms, treatment, transmission, and prevention. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Jun 19, 2017;3(2):e38. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Lwin M, Lu J, Sheldenkar A, Schulz P. Strategic uses of Facebook in zika outbreak communication: implications for the crisis and emergency risk communication model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Sep 10, 2018;15(9):1974. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Chan M-PS, Winneg K, Hawkins L, Farhadloo M, Jamieson KH, Albarracín D. Legacy and social media respectively influence risk perceptions and protective behaviors during emerging health threats: a multi-wave analysis of communications on zika virus cases. Soc Sci Med. Sep 2018;212:50-59. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Vijaykumar S, Nowak G, Himelboim I, Jin Y. Virtual zika transmission after the first U.S. case: who said what and how it spread on Twitter. Am J Infect Control. May 2018;46(5):549-557. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Sousa L, de Mello R, Cedrim D, Garcia A, Missier P, Uchôa A, et al. VazaDengue: an information system for preventing and combating mosquito-borne diseases with social networks. Inf Syst. Jun 2018;75:26-42. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    91. Abouzahra M, Tan J. Twitter vs. zika—the role of social media in epidemic outbreaks surveillance. Health Policy Technol. Mar 2021;10(1):174-181. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    92. Albinati J, Meira JW, Pappa G, Teixeira M, Marques-Toledo C. Enhancement of epidemiological models for dengue fever based on Twitter data. 2017. Presented at: DH 2017: International Conference on Digital Health; July 2-5, 2017:109-118; London UK. [CrossRef]
    93. Zhou X, Lee E, Wang X, Lin L, Xuan Z, Wu D, et al. Infectious diseases prevention and control using an integrated health big data system in China. BMC Infect Dis. Apr 06, 2022;22(1):344. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Divi N, Smolinski M. EpiHacks, a process for technologists and health experts to cocreate optimal solutions for disease prevention and control: user-centered design approach. J Med Internet Res. Dec 15, 2021;23(12):e34286. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Souza J, Venturini J. Tecnologias e Covid-19 no Brasil: vigilância e desigualdade social na periferia do capitalismo. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Rio de Janeiro Office. Jun 30, 2020. URL: https:/​/br.​boell.org/​pt-br/​2020/​06/​04/​tecnologias-e-covid-19-no-brasil-vigilancia-e-desigualdade-social-na-periferia-do [accessed 2023-09-03]
    96. Quinn E, Hsiao KH, Maitland-Scott I, Gomez M, Baysari MT, Najjar Z, et al. Web-based apps for responding to acute infectious disease outbreaks in the community: systematic review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Apr 21, 2021;7(4):e24330. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Leal-Neto OB, Santos F, Lee J, Albuquerque J, Souza W. Prioritizing COVID-19 tests based on participatory surveillance and spatial scanning. Int J Med Inform. Nov 2020;143:104263. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Allen C, Tsou M, Aslam A, Nagel A, Gawron J. Applying GIS and machine learning methods to Twitter data for multiscale surveillance of influenza. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0157734. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Samaras L, García-Barriocanal E, Sicilia M. Comparing social media and Google to detect and predict severe epidemics. Sci Rep. Mar 16, 2020;10(1):4747. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Jain L. An entropy-based method to control COVID-19 rumors in online social networks using opinion leaders. Technol Soc. Aug 2022;70:102048. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Venkatesh U, Gandhi PA. Prediction of COVID-19 outbreaks using Google Trends in India: a retrospective analysis. Healthc Inform Res. Jul 2020;26(3):175-184. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Dong J, Wu H, Zhou D, Li K, Zhang Y, Ji H, et al. Application of big data and artificial intelligence in COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management decisions in China. J Med Syst. Jul 24, 2021;45(9):84. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Comito C, Pizzuti C. Artificial intelligence for forecasting and diagnosing COVID-19 pandemic: a focused review. Artif Intell Med. Jun 2022;128:102286. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Leal-Neto OB, Albuquerque J, Souza W, Cesse E, Cruz O. Inovações disruptivas e as transformações da saúde pública na era digital. Cad Saúde Pública. Nov 21, 2017;33(11):e00005717. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    105. Filho C, Porto AD. Uso de big data em saúde no Brasil: perspectivas para um futuro próximo. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. Jun 2015;24(2):325-332. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    106. Aiello AE, Renson A, Zivich PN. Social media- and internet-based disease surveillance for public health. Annu Rev Public Health. Apr 02, 2020;41:101-118. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Velasco E, Agheneza T, Denecke K, Kirchner G, Eckmanns T. Social media and internet-based data in global systems for public health surveillance: a systematic review. Milbank Q. Mar 06, 2014;92(1):7-33. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Barros JM, Duggan J, Rebholz-Schuhmann D. The application of internet-based sources for public health surveillance (infoveillance): systematic review. J Med Internet Res. Mar 13, 2020;22(3):e13680. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Pesquisa sobre o uso das Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação nos domicílios brasileiros - TIC Domicílios 2018. CETIC. Oct 28, 2019. URL: https:/​/cetic.​br/​publicacao/​pesquisa-sobre-o-uso-das-tecnologias-de-informacao-e-comunicacao-nos-domicilios-brasileiros-tic-domicilios-2018 [accessed 2023-09-06]
    110. Leal-Neto OB, Dimech G, Libel M, Oliveira W, Ferreira J. Digital disease detection and participatory surveillance: overview and perspectives for Brazil. Rev Saúde Pública. 2016;50:17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    111. Dixon B, Grannis S, McAndrews C, Broyles A, Mikels-Carrasco W, Wiensch A, et al. Leveraging data visualization and a statewide health information exchange to support COVID-19 surveillance and response: application of public health informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Jul 14, 2021;28(7):1363-1373. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AI: artificial Intelligence
    CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    CHIKV: chikungunya virus
    DENV: dengue virus
    IoT: internet of things
    PPV: positive predictive value
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    ZIKV: zika virus

    Edited by A Schwartz; submitted 17.02.24; peer-reviewed by Y Yan, J Mistry, S Pesälä; comments to author 30.05.24; revised version received 10.07.24; accepted 15.10.24; published 18.11.24.

    Copyright

    ©Carolina Lopes Melo, Larissa Rangel Mageste, Lusiele Guaraldo, Daniela Polessa Paula, Mayumi Duarte Wakimoto. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.11.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.