Evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012-2015.
Democratic Republic of Congo
Evaluation
Influenza
Surveillance
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Dec 2019
10 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
19
07
2019
accepted:
27
11
2019
entrez:
12
12
2019
pubmed:
12
12
2019
medline:
5
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization recommends periodic evaluations of influenza surveillance systems to identify areas for improvement and provide evidence of data reliability for policymaking. However, data about the performance of established influenza surveillance systems are limited in Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to evaluate the performance of the influenza sentinel surveillance system (ISSS) in DRC during 2012-2015. The performance of the system was evaluated using eight surveillance attributes: (i) data quality and completeness for key variables, (ii) timeliness, (iii) representativeness, (iv) flexibility, (v) simplicity, (vi) acceptability, (vii) stability and (viii) utility. For each attribute, specific indicators were developed and described using quantitative and qualitative methods. Scores for each indicator were as follows: < 60% weak performance; 60-79% moderate performance; ≥80% good performance. During 2012-2015, we enrolled and tested 4339 patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) and 2869 patients with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) from 11 sentinel sites situated in 5 of 11 provinces. Influenza viruses were detected in 446 (10.3%) samples from patients with ILI and in 151 (5.5%) samples from patients with SARI with higher detection during December-May. Data quality and completeness was > 90% for all evaluated indicators. Other strengths of the system were timeliness, simplicity, stability and utility that scored > 70% each. Representativeness, flexibility and acceptability had moderate performance. It was reported that the ISSS contributed to: (i) a better understanding of the epidemiology, circulating patterns and proportional contribution of influenza virus among patients with ILI or SARI; (ii) acquisition of new key competences related to influenza surveillance and diagnosis; and (iii) continuous education of surveillance staff and clinicians at sentinel sites about influenza. However, due to limited resources no actions were undertaken to mitigate the impact of seasonal influenza epidemics. The system performed overall satisfactorily and provided reliable and timely data about influenza circulation in DRC. The simplicity of the system contributed to its stability. A better use of the available data could be made to inform and promote prevention interventions especially among the most vulnerable groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization recommends periodic evaluations of influenza surveillance systems to identify areas for improvement and provide evidence of data reliability for policymaking. However, data about the performance of established influenza surveillance systems are limited in Africa, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
METHODS
METHODS
We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to evaluate the performance of the influenza sentinel surveillance system (ISSS) in DRC during 2012-2015. The performance of the system was evaluated using eight surveillance attributes: (i) data quality and completeness for key variables, (ii) timeliness, (iii) representativeness, (iv) flexibility, (v) simplicity, (vi) acceptability, (vii) stability and (viii) utility. For each attribute, specific indicators were developed and described using quantitative and qualitative methods. Scores for each indicator were as follows: < 60% weak performance; 60-79% moderate performance; ≥80% good performance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During 2012-2015, we enrolled and tested 4339 patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) and 2869 patients with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) from 11 sentinel sites situated in 5 of 11 provinces. Influenza viruses were detected in 446 (10.3%) samples from patients with ILI and in 151 (5.5%) samples from patients with SARI with higher detection during December-May. Data quality and completeness was > 90% for all evaluated indicators. Other strengths of the system were timeliness, simplicity, stability and utility that scored > 70% each. Representativeness, flexibility and acceptability had moderate performance. It was reported that the ISSS contributed to: (i) a better understanding of the epidemiology, circulating patterns and proportional contribution of influenza virus among patients with ILI or SARI; (ii) acquisition of new key competences related to influenza surveillance and diagnosis; and (iii) continuous education of surveillance staff and clinicians at sentinel sites about influenza. However, due to limited resources no actions were undertaken to mitigate the impact of seasonal influenza epidemics.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The system performed overall satisfactorily and provided reliable and timely data about influenza circulation in DRC. The simplicity of the system contributed to its stability. A better use of the available data could be made to inform and promote prevention interventions especially among the most vulnerable groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31823763
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-8008-2
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-8008-2
pmc: PMC6902419
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1652Subventions
Organisme : CDC HHS
ID : U51IP000602
Pays : United States
Références
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 6;19(1):694
pubmed: 31170955
J Infect Dis. 2012 Dec 15;206 Suppl 1:S36-40
pubmed: 23169969
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 May 1;95(5):375-381
pubmed: 28479639
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018 Nov;12(6):695-705
pubmed: 30120818
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 Jul 27;50(RR-13):1-35; quiz CE1-7
pubmed: 18634202
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 30;10(3):e0120226
pubmed: 25822719
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 14;14(3):e0213627
pubmed: 30870489
PLoS Med. 2016 Mar 24;13(3):e1001977
pubmed: 27011229
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 1;52 Suppl 1:S36-43
pubmed: 21342897
J Infect Dis. 2015 Sep 15;212(6):853-60
pubmed: 25712970
J Infect Dis. 2012 Dec 15;206 Suppl 1:S14-21
pubmed: 23169960
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 10;4(1):ofw262
pubmed: 28480255
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 7;103(45):16936-41
pubmed: 17075062
Vaccine. 2016 Nov 4;34(46):5649-5655
pubmed: 27720448