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

IndicatorCalculation/data inputsData sourceIndicator valueScore
Simplicity
• Perception of surveillance staff on identification of casesNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 9.3%3
D: 7.0%
E: 27.9%
VE: 55.8%
• Perception of surveillance staff on obtaining consentNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 4.6%3
D: 13.3%
E: 35.6%
VE: 46.5%
• Perception of surveillance staff on completing the CIFNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%3
D: 0.0%
E: 27.9%
VD: 72.1%
• Perception of surveillance staff on sample collectionNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%3
D: 5.7%
E: 80.0%
VE: 14.3%
• Perception of surveillance staff on packaging and storage of samplesNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%3
D: 0.0%
E: 20.9%
VE: 79.1%
• Perception of surveillance staff on completing the screening/enrollment logbookNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [very difficult (VD), difficult (D), easy (E), very easy (VE)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 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 packagingNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire 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 bulletinsNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesNS: 0.0%3
PS: 0.0%
S: 25.6%
VS: 74.4%
• Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the feedback of laboratory resultsNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesNS: 0.0%3
PS: 9.3%
S: 69.8%
VS: 20.9%
• Proportion of time allocated to influenza surveillance activities per weekNumber of hours allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week / Number of working hour per weekQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites22.5%3
• Number of ILI/SARI patients enrolled per dayNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [≤5 patients (≤5), 6–10 patients (6–10), > 10 (> 10)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire 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)