Department of Global Health and Development, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland.
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Feb;7(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005971.
The 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) took place in the highly complex protracted crisis regions of North Kivu and Ituri. The Red Cross developed a community feedback (CF) data collection process through the work of hundreds of Red Cross personnel, who gathered unprompted feedback in order to inform the response coordination mechanism and decision-making.
To understand how a new CF system was used to make operational and strategic decisions by Ebola response leadership.
Qualitative data collection in November 2019 in Goma and Beni (DRC), including document review, observation of meetings and CF activities, key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
The credibility and use of different evidence types was affected by the experiential and academic backgrounds of the consumers of that evidence. Ebola response decision-makers were often medics or epidemiologists who tended to view quantitative evidence as having more rigour than qualitative evidence. The process of taking in and using evidence in the Ebola response was affected by decision-makers' bandwidth to parse large volumes of data coming from a range of different sources. The operationalisation of those data into decisions was hampered by the size of the response and an associated reduction in agility to new evidence.
CF data collection has both instrumental and intrinsic value for outbreak response and should be normalised as a critical data stream; however, a failure to act on those data can further frustrate communities.
2018 年至 2020 年期间,刚果民主共和国(刚果(金))爆发的埃博拉疫情发生在北基伍省和伊图里省这两个极其复杂的持久危机地区。红十字会通过数百名红十字人员的工作开发了社区反馈(CF)数据收集流程,这些人员在没有提示的情况下收集反馈,以便为应对协调机制和决策提供信息。
了解新的 CF 系统如何用于做出埃博拉应对领导的运营和战略决策。
2019 年 11 月在戈马和贝尼(刚果(金))进行了定性数据收集,包括文件审查、会议和 CF 活动观察、关键知情人访谈和焦点小组讨论。
不同证据类型的可信度和使用受到证据使用者的经验和学术背景的影响。埃博拉应对决策者通常是医生或流行病学家,他们倾向于认为定量证据比定性证据更严谨。埃博拉应对过程中获取和使用证据的过程受到决策者解析来自各种不同来源的大量数据的带宽的影响。由于应对规模较大,以及对新证据的反应敏捷性降低,这些数据在决策中的实施受到了阻碍。
CF 数据收集对疫情应对具有工具价值和内在价值,应将其正常化为关键数据流;然而,如果不采取行动,这些数据可能会进一步令社区感到沮丧。