Advancing Data Science Among the Federal Public Health Workforce: The Data Science Upskilling Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CONTEXT

Data can guide decision-making to improve the health of communities, but potential for use can only be realized if public health professionals have data science skills. However, not enough public health professionals possess the quantitative data skills to meet growing data science needs, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

PROGRAM

The Data Science Upskilling (DSU) program increases data science literacy among staff and fellows working and training at CDC. The DSU program was established in 2019 as a team-based, project-driven, on-the-job applied upskilling program. Learners, within interdisciplinary teams, use curated learning resources to advance their CDC projects. The program has rapidly expanded from upskilling 13 teams of 31 learners during 2019-2020 to upskilling 36 teams of 143 learners during 2022-2023.

EVALUATION

All 2022-2023 cohort respondents to the end-of-project survey reported the program increased their data science knowledge. In addition, 90% agreed DSU improved their data science skills, 93% agreed it improved their confidence making data science decisions, and 96% agreed it improved their ability to perform data science work that benefits CDC.

DISCUSSION

DSU is an innovative, inclusive, and successful approach to improving data science literacy at CDC. DSU may serve as an upskilling model for other organizations.

Development of the Vaccine Analytic Unit's research agenda for investigating potential adverse events associated with anthrax vaccine adsorbed

PURPOSE

In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established the Vaccine Analytic Unit (VAU) in collaboration with the Department of Defense (DoD). The focus of this report is to describe the process by which the VAU's anthrax vaccine safety research plan was developed following a comprehensive review of these topics.

METHODS

Public health literature, surveillance data, and clinical sources were reviewed to create a list of adverse events hypothesized to be potentially related to anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA). From this list, a consensus process was used to select 11 important research topics. Adverse event background papers were written for each of these topics, addressing predetermined criteria. These were independently reviewed and ranked by a National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) workgroup. The adverse events included in the final priority list will be the subject of observational or other post marketing surveillance studies using the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) database.

RESULTS

A review of various information sources identified over 100 potential adverse events. The review process recommended 11 topics as potentially warranting further study. The NVAC workgroup identified the following adverse event topics for study: arthritis, optic neuritis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic epidermal necrolysis. Two additional topics (systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and multiple, near-concurrent military vaccinations) were added in response to emerging public health and military concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience described, while specific for establishing the VAU's research agenda for the safety of the current anthrax vaccine, may be useful and adapted for research planning in other areas of public health research.

An overview of adverse events reported by participants in CDC's anthrax vaccine and antimicrobial availability program

PURPOSE

The CDC's Anthrax Vaccine and Antibiotic Availability Program was implemented under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to provide additional post-exposure prophylaxis for individuals potentially exposed to Bacillus anthracis in the fall of 2001. Participants were provided with two options: (1) 40 additional days of antimicrobial prophylaxis (i.e., ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, or amoxicillin); or (2) 40 additional days of antimicrobial prophylaxis plus three doses of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA).

METHODS

Participants were monitored for adverse events (AEs). Participants were asked to complete 2-week AE diaries for 6 weeks post-enrollment, and approximately 2 months after enrollment, active surveillance was conducted through telephone interviews with 1113 (64%) participants.

RESULTS

A total of 1727 of approximately 10 000 previously prophylaxed persons enrolled to receive 40 additional days of antibiotics. Of these, 199 opted at enrollment to receive three doses of AVA in addition to the additional 40 days of antibiotic. Overall, 28% of participants reported at least one AE on their diaries. Results varied by surveillance mechanism, the diary data indicated differences in the proportion reporting AEs between participants receiving antibiotic only and participants receiving antibiotic and AVA. However, during the active 2-month telephone follow-up, the rates of AEs reported for both the antibiotic only and antibiotic plus AVA treatment regimens were similar. Additionally, ciprofloxacin and doxycycline had similar AE profiles, with only rigors reported significantly more often among ciprofloxacin recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the rates of AEs experienced by all participants were acceptable given the seriousness of potential B. anthracis exposure.

Serious adverse events among participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Anthrax Vaccine and Antimicrobial Availability Program for persons at risk for bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax

On 20 December 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Anthrax Vaccine and Antibiotic Availability Program (hereafter, the "Program") under an investigational new drug application with the US Food and Drug Administration. This Program provided options for additional preventive treatment for persons at risk for inhalation anthrax as a result of recent bioterrorism attacks who had concluded or were concluding a 60-day course of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Participants were offered an additional 40 days of antibiotic therapy (with ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, or amoxicillin) or antibiotic therapy plus 3 doses of anthrax vaccine. By 11 February 2002, a total of 5420 persons had received standardized education about the Program and 1727 persons (32%) had enrolled. Twelve participants have been identified as having serious adverse events (SAEs). One SAE, which occurred in a participant with ciprofloxacin-induced allergic interstitial nephritis, was considered to be probably associated with treatment received in the Program. No SAEs were associated with anthrax vaccine. CDC will continue to monitor Program participants during the next 2 years.

Alcohol treatment research follow-up interviews and drinking behaviors

OBJECTIVE

This study, drawing upon data collected as part of a randomized clinical trial of alcohol treatment matching effects, investigates the relationship between research follow-up assessment interviews and subsequent drinking behaviors.

METHOD

Subjects (N = 188; 143 men) participated in a day hospital substance-use disorder treatment program at either a private psychiatric hospital (n = 151) or a community hospital (n = 37) and were classified into one of three research groups: regularly scheduled follow-up interviews, missed scheduled follow-up interviews, and delayed Year-2 follow-up interviews. Complete data relevant to the present study were collected on 157 subjects.

RESULTS

Study results provided support for a subject reactivity effect related to the research follow-up interview; that is, those subjects classified within the regularly scheduled follow-up interviews condition had the better drinking outcomes. Furthermore, by the end of the second follow-up year, subjects classified within the delayed Year-2 follow-up interviews condition had the poorest drinking outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There may be considerable potential for subject reactivity effects, specific to the research assessment interview, to confound study results. Therefore, the interpretation of data from alcohol treatment outcome studies that fail to control for such potential confounding effects must be viewed with caution. Researchers are advised to control for these potentially confounding effects via methodological and/or statistical mechanisms.