MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978592243 · doi:10.2196/15237

Outcomes of Mobile Reporting to Enhance Disease Surveillance in 632 Districts of 29 States in Nigeria

2019· article· en· W2978592243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Winifred Ukponu, Joy Shallangwa, Helen Adamu, Amina Mohammed, Adachioma Chinonso Ihueze, Ramat Ibrahim, Olatayo Olawepo, Rimamdeyati Yashe, Kingsley Njoku, Mercy Niyang

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisease surveillanceMobile phoneHealth carePopulationMedicinePhoneMedical emergencyPublic healthPublic health surveillanceEnvironmental healthBusinessComputer scienceNursingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Optimal disease surveillance provides opportunities for identifying outbreaks early and intervening to reduce their spread and impact. The availability of mobile phone technologies have improved communication across the world and now serves as an effective system for frontline healthcare workers to gather and disseminate data that can inform actions at country and program levels. In Nigeria, with an estimated population of over 200 million people spread across a wide land mass area of 923,763 km2, surveillance for diseases will require innovative strategies with penetrative abilities to the lowest levels of healthcare to achieve desired outcomes. Objective The objective was to describe the outcomes of reporting using mobile technology to enhance surveillance. Methods An SMS-based reporting tool was developed which conforms to the nationally approved weekly reporting format for IDSR 002 diseases. A total of nine diseases and public health events are reported weekly by 774 Disease Surveillance and Notification Officers (DSNOs) at the Districts. On reporting days (Tuesdays), the DSNOs receive a reminder via SMS to send in their reports, which is shortly followed by the reporting template. The DSNOs enter the weekly data for their respective data and send via SMS. The data is received nationally at the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) where staff provide oversight function on reports coming in by states. The team monitor reporting through visualization monitoring boards and respond to wrongly sent reports by calling up the DSNO. Collated reports by states are shared with the State Supervisory Teams on nationally approved Excel sheets which bypasses the cumbersome nature of direct data entry on the Excel sheets. Reports are validated by the state before the final version of the Excel sheets are shared with the NCDC. Completeness, timeliness of data, and alert threshold of reported cases were used to monitor the reporting process for 52 weeks in 2018. Results A total of 32,864 reports were expected in 2018 with 1 report sent weekly from each of the 632 districts of 29 states. The benchmark for timely reports is 80% and completeness of reports is 90% as indicated in the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) Technical Guidelines. Average completeness was 90% with 97% noted in February and 57% in November. An average of 93% of reports were sent in a timely manner with timeliness of 89% observed in in June and July and 96% observed in January, February, and December. All 29 states reported in a timely manner and 2 states sent in complete reports consistently for 52 weeks. This system provided real-time alerts for priority diseases that were above established thresholds highlighting the start of various outbreaks reported in the year. Conclusions During the year, there was a marked improvement in disease surveillance and notification despite periods of low completeness of reports observed. Instituting into mobile systems, processing for feedback, and improvement will further support the system among healthcare workers. Leveraging on the ease of how mobile phones have become part of everyday human life, disease surveillance methods can be enhanced and used on mobile phones

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207