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

Table 5 Indicators for utility and sustainability used for the evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in Zambia, 2011-2017^a

Indicator	Calculation/data inputs	Data source	Indicator value	Score
Utility
International
• Proportion of weeks with data reported to WHO FluNet	Number of weeks with data reported to WHO FluNet / Number of weeks during the evaluated period	Weekly FluNet submissions	98.4%	3
• Mean annual number of samples shared with WHO Collaborating Centers (WHO CC)	Number of samples/isolates shared with WHO CC / Number of years with samples shipped.	Shipment logs to WHO CC London	23 (range 14–33) shipped during 2012 and 2014–2017	3
• Number of contributions to influenza Regional/Global studies	Number of publications on Regional/Global studies with influenza data from Zambia	PubMed	2 [8,28]	2
Domestic
• Ability to assess important influenza epidemiological features/public health outcomes	• Temporal patters of influenza virus circulation (Yes) [3]	Publications and reports	80.0%^b	3
	• Circulating influenza types/subtypes, including pandemic strains (Yes) [3]
	• Proportion of ILI/SARI illness attributable to influenza virus infection (Yes) [3]
	• Risk factors for influenza-associated severe illness (No)
	• Burden of influenza-associated illness (Yes) [14]
Sustainability
• Proportion of the ISSS cost covered by the Zambia-MoH	Cost covered by the Zambia-MoH / Total cost	Budget report	16.9%	1
• Availability and implementation of a sustainability plan	• Drafted (Yes)	Sustainability plan	25.0%^b	1
	• Finalized (No)
	• Approved (No)
	• Implemented (No)

Abbreviations: MoH Ministry of Health
^aEach quantitative indicator was evaluated as the proportion (expressed as percentage) of the outcome of interest over the total. 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). For indicators for which a proportion over a total could not be obtained (qualitative indicators) a score was assigned based on the same scale using expert consensus
^bIndicator value calculated by dividing the number of achieved outcome by the total number of outcome considered (i.e. 4/5 = 80.0% or 1/4 = 25.0%)