HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, R Articles by Hackman, H Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Campbell, R Articles by Hackman, H

From surveillance to action: early gains from the National Violent Death Reporting System

¹ Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Injury Surveillance Program, Boston, MA, USA
² South Carolina Department of Health, Division of Injury and Violence Prevention, Columbia, SC, USA
³ Oregon Department of Human Services, Division of Health Services, PO, Oregon, USA
⁴ Virginia Department of Health, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Richmond, VA, USA
⁵ Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Anchorage AK, USA
⁶ Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Injury Prevention and Control Program, Boston, MA, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr R Campbell
Injury Surveillance Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 250 Washington Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02108-4619, USA; richard.campbell{at}state.ma.us

ABSTRACT
Objectives: Drawing from the experiences of individual state programs that currently participate in the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), this article reviews some of the practical benefits that may accrue from the introduction of violent death surveillance systems.

Design: As a state-based surveillance system that uses multiple data sources and relies upon multiple stakeholders, the NVDRS program has fostered an array of initiatives within and among individual state programs. State-based initiatives highlighted in this article were selected on the basis of a purposive sampling strategy intended to illustrate key aspects of program development.

Setting: The NVDRS state programs are in Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Results: The NVDRS has helped to build alliances and collaborative efforts between key stakeholders, facilitated the recognition of violent death as a public health problem through outreach and media attention, acted as a catalyst for new projects, enhanced surveillance of special populations and utility for evaluation, and identified key circumstances that will target interventions in state prevention planning.

Conclusions: The NVDRS has implemented data collection efforts and is beginning to produce and analyze findings. In the process of implementing the data collection system and publicizing findings, state NVDRS programs are realizing other gains that strengthen their surveillance efforts. The use of data for prevention purposes will be the ultimate indicator of program success.

Abbreviations: NVDRS, National Violent Death Reporting System; SCIBRS, South Carolina Incident Based Reporting System; SLED, State Law Enforcement Division; WHO, World Health Organization