Table 5.
List of indicators and scores [1 (< 60%): weak performance; 2 (60–79%): moderate performance; 3 (≥80%) good performance] for acceptability, stability and utility used for the evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012–2015
| Indicator | Calculation/data inputs | Data source | Indicator value | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acceptability | ||||
| • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the weekly bulletinsa | 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% PS: 0.0% S: 30.0% VS: 70.0% |
3 |
| • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with supervision and feedbacka | 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% PS: 17.6% S: 44.1% VS: 38.2% |
3 |
| • Proportion of time allocated to influenza surveillance activities per weeka | Number of hours allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week / Number of working hour per week | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites | 48.3% | 1 |
| Stability | ||||
| • Frequency of lack of data collection formsa,c | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
0: 100.0% 1: 0.0% 2–3: 0.0% ≥4: 0.0% |
3 |
| • Frequency of lack of sampling materiala | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
0: 72.7% 1: 27.3% 2–3: 0.0% ≥4: 0.0% |
2 |
| • Frequency of lack of credits for SMSa | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
0: 100.0% 1: 0.0% 2–3: 0.0% ≥4: 0.0% |
3 |
| • Frequency at which the transport of samples was delayeda | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
N: 0.0% S: 90.9% O: 9.1% R: 0.0% |
2 |
| • Frequency at which the refrigerators of the sentinel sites were not functionala | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
N: 100.0% S: 0.0% O: 0.0% R: 0.0% |
3 |
| • Frequency at which a power failure, including the generator, occurred at the surveillance sitesa | Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites |
N: 0.0% S: 9.1% O: 18.2% R: 72.7% |
1 |
| • Proportion of sentinel sites with at least one member of staff trained in sentinel surveillance procedures during the last one yeara | Number of sentinel sites with at least one trained member of staff / Number of surveillance sites | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites | 100.0% | 3 |
| Utility | ||||
| • Number of decisions taken by the INRB and/or the DLM based on influenza sentinel surveillance resultsb,d | N/A | Questionnaire survey for DLM and INRB | 4 | 2 |
| • Proportion of surveillance staff that receive the following reports: (i) Virological surveillance report, (ii) Syndromic surveillance report, (iii) Influenza bulletina | Number of surveillance staff that receive reports / Number of surveillance staff | Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites | 77.1% | 2 |
| • Estimation of burden of influenza-associated illness using surveillance data | Not applicable | Publication on burden of influenza-associated ILI and SARI. | 1 [13] | 3 |
| • Contribution to influenza Regional/Global studies | Not applicable | Publications on Regional/Global studies with DRC influenza data | 3 [14, 15] | 3 |
Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like-illness, SARI severe acute respiratory illness, SMS short message service, INRB Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, DLM Direction de la Lutte contre les Maladies
a 35 surveillance staff at the sentinel sites out of 39 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey
b 3 laboratory scientists at the INRB out of 4 targeted and 6 staff at the DLM out of 6 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey
c No information on the duration of lack of surveillance material was collected
d Decisions taken in relation to the data generated from the ISSS: (i) investigation of respiratory outbreaks in Kinshasa in 2013; (ii) formulation of outbreak investigation and response guideline for influenza outbreaks; and (iii) inclusion of influenza virus in the list of epidemic-prone notifiable diseases