University of Zimbabwe, Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, Global and Public Health, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe Department of Oral Health, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Pan Afr Med J. 2022 Mar 16;41:215. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2022.41.215.33712. eCollection 2022.
in 2018-2019 Chegutu District had one notification form Tally 1 (T1) that was completed instead of seven for detected notifiable diseases. Different figures of cholera were reported through weekly rapid disease notification system with 106 patients and Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NDSS) with 111 patients, causing data discrepancy. We evaluated the NDSS to determine reasons for underperformance and data discrepancy.
we conducted descriptive cross-sectional study using updated centres for disease control and prevention guidelines for surveillance system evaluation. We recruited forty-six health workers. Interviewer-administered questionnaires and checklists were used to collect data on reasons for underperformance, reasons for data discrepancy, knowledge of NDSS, surveillance system attributes and usefulness. Epi InfoTM7 generated frequencies, proportions, and means. Likert scale was used to assess health worker knowledge.
of the forty-six health workers, 34 (78%) had fair knowledge of NDSS. The reason for system underperformance was lack of training in NDSS 42 (91%). Data discrepancy was attributed to typographical mistakes made during data entry on WhatsApp platform 32 (70%). Eighty per cent (37) were willing to complete T1 forms. Six participants who were timed took ten minutes to complete T1 forms. Among 17 health facilities, only three had fifteen T1 forms that were adequate to notify first five cases in an outbreak. Notifiable diseases surveillance system data was used for planning health education 28 (68%).
the NDSS was unstable due to health workers' inadequate knowledge and unavailability of T1 forms. Notifiable diseases surveillance system was found to be simple, acceptable, and useful. We recommended NDSS training of health workers.
2018-2019 年，切古图区仅有一份 Tally 1（T1）报表完成了通报，而应通报的七种传染病却只完成了一份。通过每周快速疾病通报系统报告了不同数量的霍乱病例，有 106 例，而通过传染病监测系统报告了 111 例，导致数据出现差异。我们评估了传染病监测系统，以确定表现不佳和数据差异的原因。
我们使用疾病控制和预防中心更新的监测系统评估指南进行了描述性的横断面研究。我们招募了 46 名卫生工作者。访谈员管理的问卷和清单用于收集关于表现不佳的原因、数据差异的原因、对传染病监测系统的了解、监测系统属性和有用性的数据。Epi InfoTM7 生成了频率、比例和平均值。李克特量表用于评估卫生工作者的知识。
在 46 名卫生工作者中，有 34 名（78%）对传染病监测系统有较好的了解。系统表现不佳的原因是缺乏传染病监测系统培训，有 42 名（91%）。数据差异归因于 WhatsApp 平台数据录入时的打字错误，有 32 名（70%）。80%（37）的人愿意填写 T1 表。在计时的 6 名参与者中，有 3 名花了 10 分钟填写 T1 表。在 17 家卫生机构中，只有 3 家有足够的 15 份 T1 表，可以在疫情爆发时通报前 5 例病例。传染病监测系统数据用于规划健康教育的比例为 28%（28）。
由于卫生工作者知识不足和 T1 表不足，传染病监测系统不稳定。传染病监测系统被发现简单、可接受且有用。我们建议对卫生工作者进行传染病监测系统培训。
