Integrated disease surveillance and response implementation in Liberia, findings from a data quality audit, 2017.
Cluster Analysis
Communicable Disease Control
/ methods
Communicable Diseases
/ epidemiology
Communication
Data Accuracy
Health Facilities
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Liberia
/ epidemiology
Pilot Projects
Public Health
Public Health Surveillance
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Risk
Surveys and Questionnaires
Data quality assessment
and timeliness integrated disease surveillance and response
case investigation forms and eDEWS
completeness
data accuracy
disease surveillance information system
health management information system (HMIS)/district health informative system two (DHIS2) database
multi-stage cluster sampling
reliability and credibility
simple random sample
Journal
The Pan African medical journal
ISSN: 1937-8688
Titre abrégé: Pan Afr Med J
Pays: Uganda
ID NLM: 101517926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
06
11
2018
accepted:
14
05
2019
entrez:
13
8
2019
pubmed:
14
8
2019
medline:
7
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
in spite of the efforts and resources committed by the division of infectious disease and epidemiology (DIDE) of the national public health institute of Liberia (NPHIL)/Ministry of health to strengthening integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) across the country, quality data management system remains a challenge to the Liberia NPHIL/MoH (Ministry of health), with incomplete and inconsistent data constantly being reported at different levels of the surveillance system. As part of the monitoring and evaluation strategy for IDSR continuous improvement, data quality assessment (DQA) of the IDSR system to identify successes and gaps in the disease surveillance information system (DSIS) with the aim of ensuring data accuracy, reliability and credibility of generated data at all levels of the health system; and to inform an operational plan to address data quality needs for IDSR activities is required. multi-stage cluster sampling that included the assessment revealed that data use is limited to risk communication and sensitization, no examples of use of data for prioritization or decision making at the subnational level. The findings indicated the following: 23% (7/29) of health facilities having dedicated phone for reporting, 20% (6/29) reported no cell phone network, 17% (5/29) reported daily access to internet, 56.6% (17/29) reported a consistent supply of electricity, and no facility reported access to functional laptop. It was also established that 40% of health facilities have experienced a stock out of laboratory specimens packaging supplies in the past year. About half of the surveyed health facilities delivered specimens through riders and were assisted by the DSOs. There was a large variety in the reported packaging process, with many staff unable to give clear processes. The findings during the exercise also indicated that 91% of health facility staff were mentored on data quality check and data management including the importance of the timeliness and completeness of reporting through supportive supervision and mentorship; 65% of the health facility assessed received supervision on IDSR core performance indicator; and 58% of the health facility officer in charge gave feedback to the community level. public health is a data-intensive field which needs high-quality data and authoritative information to support public health assessment, decision-making and to assure the health of communities. Data quality assessment is important for public health. In this review completeness, accuracy, and timeliness were the three most-assessed attributes. Quantitative data quality assessment primarily used descriptive surveys and data audits, while qualitative data quality assessment methods include primarily interviews, questionnaires administration, documentation reviews and field observations. We found that data-use and data-process have not been given adequate attention, although they were equally important factors which determine the quality of data. Other limitations of the previous studies were inconsistency in the definition of the attributes of data quality, failure to address data users' concerns and a lack of triangulation of mixed methods for data quality assessment. The reliability and validity of the data quality assessment were rarely reported. These gaps suggest that in the future, data quality assessment for public health needs to consider equally the three dimensions of data quality, data use and data process. Measuring the perceptions of end users or consumers towards data quality will enrich our understanding of data quality issues. Data use is limited to risk communication and sensitization, no examples of use of data for prioritization or decision making at the sub national level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31402968
doi: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2019.33.2.17608
pii: PAMJ-SUPP-33-2-10
pmc: PMC6675580
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interest.
Références
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2004 Jan-Feb;23(1):81-8
pubmed: 15154263
Pan Afr Med J. 2014 Sep 22;19:48
pubmed: 25667710
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1381-4
pubmed: 25853741
Emerg Infect Dis. 2016 Jun;22(6):956-63
pubmed: 27070842
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):587-96
pubmed: 27509108