Feasibility of Establishing HIV Case-Based Surveillance to Measure Progress Along the Health Sector Cascade: Situational Assessments in Tanzania, South Africa, and Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To track the HIV epidemic and responses to it, the World Health Organization recommends 10 global indicators to collect information along the HIV care cascade. Patient diagnosis and medical record data, harnessed through case-based surveillance (CBS), can be used to measure 8 of these. While many high burden countries have well-established systems for monitoring patients on HIV treatment, few have formally adopted CBS. OBJECTIVE: In response to the need for improved strategic HIV information and to facilitate the development of CBS in resource-limited countries, we aimed to conduct situational assessments of existing data collection systems in Tanzania, South Africa, and Kenya. METHODS: We developed a standardized protocol and a modularized data collection tool to be adapted for the particular focus of the assessments within each country. The three countries were selected based on their stage of readiness for CBS. The assessment included three parts: a desk review of relevant materials on HIV surveillance and program monitoring, stakeholder meetings, and site visits. RESULTS: In all three countries, routine HIV program monitoring is conducted, and information on new HIV diagnoses and persons accessing HIV care and treatment services is collected. Key findings from the assessments included substantial stakeholder support for the development of CBS, significant challenges in linking data within and between systems, data quality, the ability to obtain data from multiple sources, and information technology infrastructure. Viral load testing capacity varied by country, and vital registry data were not routinely linked to health systems to update medical records. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the development of CBS systems to systematically capture routinely collected health data to measure and monitor HIV epidemics and guide responses. Although there were wide variations in the systems examined, some of the current program and patient monitoring systems can be adapted to function effectively for CBS, especially if supported by an improved patient registration system with shared unique health identifiers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".