Evaluation of the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System in Sana’a, Yemen, 2018: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis remains a public problem that is considered one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The National Tuberculosis Control Program in Yemen was established in 1970 and included in the national health policy under the leadership of the Ministry of Public Health and Population to monitor tuberculosis control. The surveillance system must be evaluated periodically to produce recommendations for improving performance and usefulness. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the usefulness and the performance of the tuberculosis surveillance system attributes and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the system. METHODS: A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the national tuberculosis surveillance system was conducted using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's updated guidelines. The study was carried out in 10 districts in Sana'a City. A total of 28 public health facilities providing tuberculosis services for the whole population in their assigned catchment areas were purposively selected. All participants were interviewed based on their involvement with key aspects of tuberculosis surveillance activities. RESULTS: The tuberculosis surveillance system was found to have an average performance in usefulness (57/80, 71%), flexibility (30/40, 75%), acceptability (174/264, 66%), data quality (4/6, 67%), and positive predictive value (78/107, 73%), and poor performance in simplicity (863/1452, 59%) and stability (15%, 3/20). In addition, the system also had a good performance in sensitivity (78/81, 96%). CONCLUSIONS: The tuberculosis surveillance system was found to be useful. The flexibility, positive predictive value, and data quality were average. Stability and simplicity were poor. The sensitivity was good. The main weaknesses in the tuberculosis surveillance system include a lack of governmental financial support, a paper-based system, and a lack of regular staff training. Developing an electronic system, securing governmental finances, and training the staff on tuberculosis surveillance are strongly recommended to improve the system performance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".