3.4 Data sources
On the question of whether descriptive or analytical data was used or needed the Wicoxon rank-sum test showed a significant difference between the two data types. Descriptive epidemiology was the most frequently used and with a slightly higher percentage of answers in the “very frequently” category compared to analytical epidemiology data, i.e. 30.99% against 23%. However, in the “frequently” category, both descriptive and analytical epidemiology had a 44.13% of answers (which corresponds to 94/213). A total of 1.4% of respondents never used analytical epidemiology.
The use and need for the different types of information listed in the questionnaire was evaluated. (Figure 5) . When comparing each data source’s need with use, there was significant difference. The need was greater than the use in all types of data sources listed: Scientific literature (i.e. published papers in peer-reviewed journals), international/national databases (e.g. OIE, WHO. EUROSTAST, FAOSTATS, EFSA, ECDC), national agencies (data comes from the member states’ national institution, laboratories databases, expert opinion, questionnaires) (Figure 5). National agencies, expert opinion and laboratory data bases were the data sources which differed the most in use versus need (the rank sum test had the highest difference between the two groups), with national agencies with 30% extremely needed versus 16% extremely used, expert opinion 22% extremely needed versus 8% extremely used, and laboratories databased with 29% extremely needed versus 14% extremely used.
Obtaining or acquiring this sort of data is not straightforward, as they answered “sometimes” and “very often”, with “very often” having a high score 63 out of the 213 respondents, although 105 respondents determined they get good quality data. Table 2 shows counts of respondents’ opinion of the quality of data obtained and if they had issues obtaining it. There was no association between the difficulty in obtaining data and the data quality. (Fisher’s exact test; p-value < 0.001).
Most of the respondents considered that they acquired data of fair (85/213) and good (105/213) quality. However many said they sometimes (117/213) or very often (63/213) had issues obtaining data. Data availability (i.e. degree to which data can instantly accessed) was suggested to be a bigger hurdle and constraint than data accessibility (i.e. physical conditions in which users can obtain data (e.g. where to go, how to order, delivery time)) (Wilcoxon’s rank sum test; p-value <0.05) (Figure 6). Regarding the preferred form of data, 38.42% preferred excel, 27.25% PDF, 16.35% Text, 7.90% HTLM and 10.08% had no preference (Figure 7) .