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
Indicator | Calculation/data inputs | Data source | Indicator valuea | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Simplicity | ||||
• Perception of surveillance staff on identification of casesb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 82.9% VE: 17.1% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on obtaining consentb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 8.6% E: 71.4% VE: 20.0% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on filling the CIFb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 2.9% E: 80.0% VE: 17.1% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on sample collectionb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 5.7% E: 80.0% VE: 14.3% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on sample collectionb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 79.4% VE: 20.6% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on packaging and storage of samplesb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 82.4% VE: 17.6% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on completing the screening/enrollment logbookb | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 82.4% VE: 17.6% | 3 |
• Perception of surveillance staff on sending weekly SMS of aggregated datab | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among surveillance staff at sentinel sites | VD: 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 packagingc | Number of surveillance staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of surveillance staff interviewed | Questionnaire 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 registerc | Number of lab staff within each reported category / Number of laboratory staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRB | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 66.7% VE: 33.3% | 3 |
• Perception of INRB laboratory staff to implement testing proceduresc | Number of lab staff within each reported category / Number of laboratory staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRB | VD: 0.0% D: 0.0% E: 100.0% VE: 0.0% | 3 |
• Time to implement all steps of analysis of laboratory testingb | Number of laboratory staff within each reported category (< 30 min, 30–60 min, > 60 min) / Number of laboratory staff interviewed | Questionnaire survey among laboratory staff at INRB | < 30: 0.0% 30–60: 100.0% > 60: 0.0 | 3 |