Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 6;16:100377. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100377

Table 1.

Comparison of Go.Data implementation processesa between the three use-cases; Argentina, Guatemala and University of Texas at Austin, 2020-2022.

Server Configuration Analytics Plug-in Training Modality Implementation period Active Users Number of cases Interoperability
Argentina Container Orchestration system (Kubernetes) Image, table 2 Training modules on MoH website; Provincial communication campaigns April 2020
October 2021		 800 85,830 SNVS2.0 / SISAb
Guatemala Centralized server at MoH Epidemiology Department Image, table 2 Virtual training workshops with local response teams; follow-up in-person refreshers May 2020 – November 2020 65 12,953 Epiweb national epidemiology center
University of Texas at Austin Distributed cloud (AWSb) within VPCb Image, table 2 Online curriculum delivered by Training Coordinator and Team leads August 2020 – May 2022 ·· 10,731 APHb database
a

Including server configuration, analytics, training modalities, number of active users and interoperability with other systems.

b

APH database denotes Actual Production History. AWS denotes Amazon Web Services. MoH denotes Ministry of Health. SISA denotes Sistema Integrado de Información Sanitaria Argentino. SNVS2.0 denotes Sistema Nacional de Vigilancia de la Salud. VPC denotes Virtual Private Cloud.