Assessing routine health information system performance during the tenth outbreak of Ebola virus disease (2018–2020) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A qualitative study in North Kivu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Democratic Republic of Congo has implemented reforms to its national routine health information system (RHIS) to improve timeliness, completeness, and use of quality data. However, outbreaks can undermine efforts to strengthen it. We assessed the functioning of the RHIS during the 2018-2020 outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) to identify opportunities for future development. We conducted a qualitative study in North Kivu, from March to May 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 key informants purposively selected from among the personnel involved in the production of RHIS data. The topics discussed included RHIS functioning, tools, compilation, validation, quality, sharing, and the use of data. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to study the interviewees' lived experience. The RHIS retained its structure, tools, and flow during the outbreak. The need for other types of data to inform the EVD response created other parallel systems to the RHIS. This included data from Ebola treatment centers, vaccination against Ebola, points of entry surveillance, and safe and dignified burial. The informants indicated that the availability of weekly surveillance data had improved, while timeliness and quality of monthly RHIS reporting declined. The compilation of data was late and validation meetings were irregular. The upsurge of patients following the implementation of the free care policy, the departure of healthcare workers for better-paid jobs, and the high prioritization of the outbreak response over routine activities led to RHIS disruptions. Delays in decision-making were one of the consequences of the decline in data timeliness. Adequate allocation of human resources, equitable salary policy, coordination, and integration of the response with local structures are necessary to ensure optimal functioning of the RHIS during an outbreak. Future research should assess the scale of data quality changes during outbreaks.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".