Skip to main content

Table 3 Indicators for simplicity and acceptability used for the evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in Zambia, 2011-2017a

From: An evaluation of the Zambia influenza sentinel surveillance system, 2011–2017

Indicator

Calculation/data inputs

Data source

Indicator value

Score

Simplicity

• Perception of surveillance staff on identification of cases

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 9.3%

3

D: 7.0%

E: 27.9%

VE: 55.8%

• Perception of surveillance staff on obtaining consent

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 4.6%

3

D: 13.3%

E: 35.6%

VE: 46.5%

• Perception of surveillance staff on completing the CIF

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 0.0%

3

D: 0.0%

E: 27.9%

VD: 72.1%

• Perception of surveillance staff on sample collection

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 0.0%

3

D: 5.7%

E: 80.0%

VE: 14.3%

• Perception of surveillance staff on packaging and storage of samples

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 0.0%

3

D: 0.0%

E: 20.9%

VE: 79.1%

• Perception of surveillance staff on completing the screening/enrollment logbook

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites

VD: 0.0%

3

D: 0.0%

E: 72.4%

VE: 27.6%

• Time to enroll a SARI/ILI case from patient’s identification to the sample packaging

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

< 30: 68.6%

2

30–60: 20.0%

> 60: 11.4%

Acceptability

• Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the weekly bulletins

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

NS: 0.0%

3

PS: 0.0%

S: 25.6%

VS: 74.4%

• Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the feedback of laboratory results

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

NS: 0.0%

3

PS: 9.3%

S: 69.8%

VS: 20.9%

• Proportion of time allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week

Number of hours allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week / Number of working hour per week

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

22.5%

3

• Number of ILI/SARI patients enrolled per day

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [≤5 patients (≤5), 6–10 patients (6–10), > 10 (> 10)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

≤5: 95.2%

3

6–10: 3.2%

> 10: 1.2%

  1. Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like-illness; SARI severe acute respiratory illness; CIF Case Investigation Form
  2. aEach quantitative indicator was evaluated as the proportion (expressed as percentage) of the outcome of interest over the total (indicator value). A scale from 1 to 3 was used to provide a score for each quantitative indicator as follows: < 60% (from the above calculation) scored 1 (weak performance); 60–79% scored 2 (moderate performance); ≥80% scored 3 (good performance)