Towards an integrated animal health surveillance system in Tanzania: making better use of existing and potential data sources for early warning surveillance.
Animal health
Data source
Early warning
Integration
Surveillance
Tanzania
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Mar 2021
06 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
16
10
2020
accepted:
03
02
2021
entrez:
7
3
2021
pubmed:
8
3
2021
medline:
14
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Effective animal health surveillance systems require reliable, high-quality, and timely data for decision making. In Tanzania, the animal health surveillance system has been relying on a few data sources, which suffer from delays in reporting, underreporting, and high cost of data collection and transmission. The integration of data from multiple sources can enhance early detection and response to animal diseases and facilitate the early control of outbreaks. This study aimed to identify and assess existing and potential data sources for the animal health surveillance system in Tanzania and how they can be better used for early warning surveillance. The study used a mixed-method design to identify and assess data sources. Data were collected through document reviews, internet search, cross-sectional survey, key informant interviews, site visits, and non-participant observation. The assessment was done using pre-defined criteria. A total of 13 data sources were identified and assessed. Most surveillance data came from livestock farmers, slaughter facilities, and livestock markets; while animal dip sites were the least used sources. Commercial farms and veterinary shops, electronic surveillance tools like AfyaData and Event Mobile Application (EMA-i) and information systems such as the Tanzania National Livestock Identification and Traceability System (TANLITS) and Agricultural Routine Data System (ARDS) show potential to generate relevant data for the national animal health surveillance system. The common variables found across most sources were: the name of the place (12/13), animal type/species (12/13), syndromes (10/13) and number of affected animals (8/13). The majority of the sources had good surveillance data contents and were accessible with medium to maximum spatial coverage. However, there was significant variation in terms of data frequency, accuracy and cost. There were limited integration and coordination of data flow from the identified sources with minimum to non-existing automated data entry and transmission. The study demonstrated how the available data sources have great potential for early warning surveillance in Tanzania. Both existing and potential data sources had complementary strengths and weaknesses; a multi-source surveillance system would be best placed to harness these different strengths.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Effective animal health surveillance systems require reliable, high-quality, and timely data for decision making. In Tanzania, the animal health surveillance system has been relying on a few data sources, which suffer from delays in reporting, underreporting, and high cost of data collection and transmission. The integration of data from multiple sources can enhance early detection and response to animal diseases and facilitate the early control of outbreaks. This study aimed to identify and assess existing and potential data sources for the animal health surveillance system in Tanzania and how they can be better used for early warning surveillance. The study used a mixed-method design to identify and assess data sources. Data were collected through document reviews, internet search, cross-sectional survey, key informant interviews, site visits, and non-participant observation. The assessment was done using pre-defined criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 13 data sources were identified and assessed. Most surveillance data came from livestock farmers, slaughter facilities, and livestock markets; while animal dip sites were the least used sources. Commercial farms and veterinary shops, electronic surveillance tools like AfyaData and Event Mobile Application (EMA-i) and information systems such as the Tanzania National Livestock Identification and Traceability System (TANLITS) and Agricultural Routine Data System (ARDS) show potential to generate relevant data for the national animal health surveillance system. The common variables found across most sources were: the name of the place (12/13), animal type/species (12/13), syndromes (10/13) and number of affected animals (8/13). The majority of the sources had good surveillance data contents and were accessible with medium to maximum spatial coverage. However, there was significant variation in terms of data frequency, accuracy and cost. There were limited integration and coordination of data flow from the identified sources with minimum to non-existing automated data entry and transmission.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrated how the available data sources have great potential for early warning surveillance in Tanzania. Both existing and potential data sources had complementary strengths and weaknesses; a multi-source surveillance system would be best placed to harness these different strengths.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33676498
doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-02789-x
pii: 10.1186/s12917-021-02789-x
pmc: PMC7936506
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109Subventions
Organisme : Government of Tanzania and World Bank
ID : PAD 1436
Références
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Jul 31;6:252
pubmed: 31417918
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2011 Apr;58(2):110-20
pubmed: 21159152
Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2002 Dec;69(4):305-14
pubmed: 12625383
PLoS One. 2008 Jul 09;3(7):e2626
pubmed: 18612462
BMC Vet Res. 2014 Jan 31;10:33
pubmed: 24479844
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010 Feb;19(2):124-31
pubmed: 20077525
Can Vet J. 2003 Oct;44(10):805-15
pubmed: 14601676
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 Dec 18;3(4):e94
pubmed: 29254916
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013 Aug;45(6):1439-45
pubmed: 23420069
Occup Environ Med. 2009 Nov;66(11):766-71
pubmed: 19528044
Front Public Health. 2015 Apr 28;3:74
pubmed: 25973416
Infect Dis Poverty. 2018 Nov 16;7(1):125
pubmed: 30541626
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Apr 10;6:101
pubmed: 31024939
Afr J Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):93-99
pubmed: 30456117
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Dec;27(5):379-84
pubmed: 15556737
Epidemiol Infect. 2014 Jan;142(1):172-86
pubmed: 23527498
Int J Health Geogr. 2011 May 25;10:39
pubmed: 21612652
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Feb;47(2):170-6
pubmed: 16431230
Rev Sci Tech. 2004 Dec;23(3):851-61
pubmed: 15861880
Vet Med (Auckl). 2016 Nov 15;7:157-170
pubmed: 30050848
Vet Ital. 2006 Oct-Dec;42(4):399-406
pubmed: 20429074
Epidemiol Infect. 2017 Mar;145(4):802-817
pubmed: 27938416
J Agromedicine. 2006;11(1):5-15
pubmed: 16893833