Metagenomic detection of a wide variety of viruses from Vietnamese bats

Introduction: Public health intelligence (PHI) is becoming increasingly crucial for early threat detection, leveraging efficient identification and information exchange.Yet, a global overview of PHI teams and their activities is lacking.We aimed to map and characterize these teams, enhancing mutual awareness and networking possibilities.Methods: We developed and circulated a multilingual online survey through network sampling (June-November 2023) via regional Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (Africa, Europe, United States), the International Association of National Public Health Institutes, the Robert Koch Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO).We identified and described PHI teams worldwide by institutional context, surveillance, and exchange activities across WHO regions.Results: We identified 122 PHI-teams from 87 countries in all WHO regions, primarily in public health institutions (45%, 55/122) and ministries (27%, 33/122).These teams focus on early detection for response activities (90%, 110/122), risk assessments (83%, 101/122), and informing policymakers (81%, 99/122).Events are monitored at national (39%, 48/122), international (20%, 24/122) and both levels (41%, 50/122).Most teams (91%, 111/122) conduct indicator-based surveillance (IBS), with 66% (81/122) also performing event-based surveillance (EBS).Facility (68%, 83/122) and community-based (63%, 77/122) detection of events are commonly performed.Teams primarily focus on human communicable diseases (94%, 115/122).While hazards monitored vary by region; the most commonly reported are healthcare-associated infections/antimicrobial resistance (65%, 79/122) and natural disasters (64%, 78/122).In the European Region 36% (16/44) monitor animal health events, compared to 68% (40/59) in the African Region.Frequently monitored diseases are: measles, influenza, cholera and viral haemorrhagic fevers/syndromes.Data collection methods vary, commonly being official websites (76%, 90/119), newsletters/mailing lists (61%, 73/119), e-mail (55%, 65/119) and ProMED (46%, 55/119).Most teams (91%, 105/115) conduct detailed assessments, with 25% (29/116) disseminating reports publicly.Nearly half (45%, 49/108) are not part of early detection networks, yet 91% (98/108) wants to cooperate with similar teams.Discussion: The global complexity of health threats like COVID-19 underscores PHI's fundamental aims of timely detection and communication.Well-connected networks require mutual awareness and sharing capabilities.Our research reveals that PHI teams worldwide perform similar tasks with varying approaches, suggesting benefits from broader exchange.Previous literature has described limited communication between PHI teams.The respondents' interest in networking underscores the need for further development of platforms supporting peer-to-peer cooperation.This aligns with the international focus on collaborative global surveillance models, crucial for enhancing global outbreak preparedness and detection.Conclusions: The 122 early threat detection teams identified share surveillance goals and methods (e.g.integration of IBS and EBS), yet differ in monitored hazards and geographical scope.Most conduct in-depth event assessments, but publication is limited.Respondents express a strong interest in enhancing collaboration.