Skip to main content

Table 4 List of indicators and scores [1 (< 60%): weak performance; 2 (60–79%): moderate performance; 3 (≥80%) good performance] for simplicity used for the evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012–2015

From: Evaluation of the influenza sentinel surveillance system in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012–2015

IndicatorCalculation/data inputsData sourceIndicator valueaScore
Simplicity
 • Perception of surveillance staff on identification of casesbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 82.9%
VE: 17.1%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on obtaining consentbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 8.6%
E: 71.4%
VE: 20.0%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on filling the CIFbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 2.9%
E: 80.0%
VE: 17.1%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on sample collectionbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 5.7%
E: 80.0%
VE: 14.3%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on sample collectionbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 79.4%
VE: 20.6%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on packaging and storage of samplesbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 82.4%
VE: 17.6%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on completing the screening/enrollment logbookbNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 82.4%
VE: 17.6%
3
 • Perception of surveillance staff on sending weekly SMS of aggregated databNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sitesVD: 0.0%
D: 6.3%
E: 71.9%
VE: 21.9%
3
 • Time to enroll a SARI/ILI case from the identification to the sample packagingcNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites< 30: 48.6%
30–60: 40.0%
> 60: 11.4%
2
 • Perception of INRB laboratory staff on completing the laboratory registercNumber of lab staff within each reported category / Number of laboratory staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRBVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 66.7%
VE: 33.3%
3
 • Perception of INRB laboratory staff to implement testing procedurescNumber of lab staff within each reported category / Number of laboratory staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRBVD: 0.0%
D: 0.0%
E: 100.0%
VE: 0.0%
3
 • Time to implement all steps of analysis of laboratory testingbNumber of laboratory staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of laboratory staff interviewedQuestionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRB< 30: 0.0%
30–60: 100.0%
> 60: 0.0
3
  1. Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like-illness, SARI severe acute respiratory illness, SMS short message service, INRB Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, CIF Case Investigation Form
  2. a VD: very difficult; D: difficult; E: easy; VE: very easy. The combined percentage of “easy” and “very easy” was used to obtain the score
  3. b 35 surveillance staff at the sentinel sites out of 39 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey
  4. c 3 laboratory scientists at the INRB out of 4 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey