Skip to main content

Table 5 List of indicators and scores [1 (< 60%): weak performance; 2 (60–79%): moderate performance; 3 (≥80%) good performance] for acceptability, stability and utility 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

Indicator

Calculation/data inputs

Data source

Indicator value

Score

Acceptability

 • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the weekly bulletinsa

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

NS: 0.0%

PS: 0.0%

S: 30.0%

VS: 70.0%

3

 • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with supervision and feedbacka

Number of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewed

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

NS: 0.0%

PS: 17.6%

S: 44.1%

VS: 38.2%

3

 • Proportion of time allocated to influenza surveillance activities per weeka

Number of hours allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week / Number of working hour per week

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

48.3%

1

Stability

 • Frequency of lack of data collection formsa,c

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

0: 100.0%

1: 0.0%

2–3: 0.0%

≥4: 0.0%

3

 • Frequency of lack of sampling materiala

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

0: 72.7%

1: 27.3%

2–3: 0.0%

≥4: 0.0%

2

 • Frequency of lack of credits for SMSa

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (0), once per year (1), 2–3 times per year (2–3), ≥4 times per year(≥4)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

0: 100.0%

1: 0.0%

2–3: 0.0%

≥4: 0.0%

3

 • Frequency at which the transport of samples was delayeda

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

N: 0.0%

S: 90.9%

O: 9.1%

R: 0.0%

2

 • Frequency at which the refrigerators of the sentinel sites were not functionala

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

N: 100.0%

S: 0.0%

O: 0.0%

R: 0.0%

3

 • Frequency at which a power failure, including the generator, occurred at the surveillance sitesa

Number of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

N: 0.0%

S: 9.1%

O: 18.2%

R: 72.7%

1

 • Proportion of sentinel sites with at least one member of staff trained in sentinel surveillance procedures during the last one yeara

Number of sentinel sites with at least one trained member of staff / Number of surveillance sites

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

100.0%

3

Utility

 • Number of decisions taken by the INRB and/or the DLM based on influenza sentinel surveillance resultsb,d

N/A

Questionnaire survey for DLM and INRB

4

2

 • Proportion of surveillance staff that receive the following reports: (i) Virological surveillance report, (ii) Syndromic surveillance report, (iii) Influenza bulletina

Number of surveillance staff that receive reports / Number of surveillance staff

Questionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites

77.1%

2

 • Estimation of burden of influenza-associated illness using surveillance data

Not applicable

Publication on burden of influenza-associated ILI and SARI.

1 [13]

3

 • Contribution to influenza Regional/Global studies

Not applicable

Publications on Regional/Global studies with DRC influenza data

3 [14, 15]

3

  1. Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like-illness, SARI severe acute respiratory illness, SMS short message service, INRB Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, DLM Direction de la Lutte contre les Maladies
  2. a 35 surveillance staff at the sentinel sites out of 39 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey
  3. b 3 laboratory scientists at the INRB out of 4 targeted and 6 staff at the DLM out of 6 targeted responded to the questionnaire survey
  4. c No information on the duration of lack of surveillance material was collected
  5. d Decisions taken in relation to the data generated from the ISSS: (i) investigation of respiratory outbreaks in Kinshasa in 2013; (ii) formulation of outbreak investigation and response guideline for influenza outbreaks; and (iii) inclusion of influenza virus in the list of epidemic-prone notifiable diseases