Evaluation of the Dengue Surveillance System in Islamabad (2019)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Dengue is a major public health threat since 2005 in Pakistan. Because of their rapid expansion and long duration, dengue epidemics reduce the productive capacity and economic development of many sections of society. Evaluation is an important step of the planning cycle to improve the utilization of resources. Objective The overall objective of the study is to assess how quickly the system can detect epidemics and to measure the capacity of the system to monitor trends in its geographical distribution over time. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted from July to September 2019 in Islamabad, Pakistan. Quantitative and qualitative assessments of system attributes were carried out according to updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems for 2001. Stakeholders were identified and approached. Four different types of semistructured questionnaires were prepared for each level of stakeholders. Results Simplicity was good, and case definition was uniform and easily understandable. Flexibility was poor, and the system was not capable of incorporating changes. Timeliness was excellent in terms of case reporting as well as case response by relevant stakeholders. Data entry operators were few but expert in their work; however, the quality of data remained a challenge as 40% forms were deficient in demographic and clinical information. Acceptability by the workers as well as the population was good. Sensitivity was high (87%). The predictive value positive (PVP) was excellent (76%). Stability was good in terms of finances and logistics, whereas representativeness was insufficient (only 30%). Conclusions The overall performance of the surveillance system for dengue in Islamabad is excellent in terms of sensitivity and the PVP. Timeliness is excellent, and acceptability is good, whereas representativeness is poor. Coverage of the system needs to be extended and private setups and laboratories included. Feedback being an important aspect of the planning cycle needs improvement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».