Table 4 Concerns among participants being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ familiar with pathogen genomics expressed as the percentage being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ concerned, Belgium, 2019. Subgroups: (i) data providers (n=62) including microbiologists, molecular biologists, bioinformaticians, and clinical biologists, and (ii) data end-users (n=54) including epidemiologists, local infection control practitioners, hospital hygienists, and clinicians
| Â | Overall (n=116) | Data providers (n=62) | Data end-users (n=54) |
|---|---|---|---|
Quality of the pathogen sequence data (validation and accreditation of both wet and dry lab protocols) | 63% | 73% | 52% |
Timeliness of the pathogen sequence data (turn-around time) | 67% | 76% | 57% |
Integration of pathogen sequence data with other types of data (e.g. clinical and epidemiological data) | 70% | 61% | 79% |
Linking pathogen sequence data from different sources (human/food/animal/environment) | 59% | 55% | 64% |
Translation of pathogen sequence data into public health action (usefulness) | 68% | 64% | 71% |
Interdisciplinary working/coordination between epidemiologists, microbiologists, bioinformaticians, etc. | 75% | 79% | 70% |
Cost of sequencing technologies | 86% | 87% | 85% |
Expertise and availability of personnel to be able to generate pathogen sequence data (wet lab) | 60% | 64% | 55% |
Expertise and availability of personnel to be able to analyze pathogen sequence data (bioinformatics) | 75% | 82% | 67% |
Timely and open sharing of pathogen sequence data and accompanying metadata | 81% | 89% | 72% |
Infrastructure (sequencers, high-performance computing, data storage, etc.) | 67% | 74% | 59% |
Availability of WGS typing schemes and reference databases (e.g. for antimicrobial resistance) | 73% | 79% | 67% |
Ethical and legal issues (e.g. patient privacy) | 54% | 56% | 52% |