Table 2 Evaluation methods used for the French (2SE FAG) and British (PRISM and RMS) military syndromic surveillance systems and their main results
| Â | 2SE FAG | PRISM | RMS |
|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation programme | Existing | Non-existent | Existing |
IE | Â | Â | Â |
   Methods | Survey of data input personnel during deployment of the prototype (French Guiana, 2004) | Technical audit on a prototype (exercise in Oman, 1991) | Multinational exercise (Afghanistan, 2006) |
   Actors | 2SE FAG team | PRISM team | RMS team SACT team |
   Results | Improvement of computerisation Adaptation of the training programme Building of the evaluation programme | Improved technical functioning | Development of analysis method |
INTE | Â | Â | Â |
   Methods | Simulation exercise (2005) Ergonomic studies (2005–2006) KAP survey (2006) Multinational exercise (Afghanistan, 2006) Technical audits (2006–2007) | Evaluation of data input personnel activities | - |
   Actors | 2SE FAG team ISPED SACT team | PRISM team |  |
   Results | Continuous improvement process Evolution of recording software Cessation of PDA use in the field Development of analysis method Adaptation of indicators for commanders | Compliance rate of 10% for data input personnel |  |
FE | Â | Â | Â |
   Methods | CDC framework Simulation exercise | General audit (2004) | - |
   Actors | LSTM PRISM team | PRISM team 2SE FAG team |  |
   Results | Lessons for generalisation of the system (2SE DJIB and others) | Lessons for development of RMS |  |