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

IndicatorCalculation/data inputsData sourceIndicator valueScore
Acceptability
 • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with the weekly bulletinsaNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesNS: 0.0%
PS: 0.0%
S: 30.0%
VS: 70.0%
3
 • Proportion of surveillance staff that is satisfied with supervision and feedbackaNumber of surveillance staff within each reported category [not satisfied (NS), poorly satisfied (PS), satisfied (S), very satisfied (VS)] / Number of surveillance staff interviewedQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesNS: 0.0%
PS: 17.6%
S: 44.1%
VS: 38.2%
3
 • Proportion of time allocated to influenza surveillance activities per weekaNumber of hours allocated to influenza surveillance activities per week / Number of working hour per weekQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites48.3%1
Stability
 • Frequency of lack of data collection formsa,cNumber 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 sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites0: 100.0%
1: 0.0%
2–3: 0.0%
≥4: 0.0%
3
 • Frequency of lack of sampling materialaNumber 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 sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites0: 72.7%
1: 27.3%
2–3: 0.0%
≥4: 0.0%
2
 • Frequency of lack of credits for SMSaNumber 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 sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites0: 100.0%
1: 0.0%
2–3: 0.0%
≥4: 0.0%
3
 • Frequency at which the transport of samples was delayedaNumber of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesN: 0.0%
S: 90.9%
O: 9.1%
R: 0.0%
2
 • Frequency at which the refrigerators of the sentinel sites were not functionalaNumber of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesN: 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 sitesaNumber of surveillance sites within each reported category [never (N), seldom (S), often (O), regularly (R)] / Number of surveillance sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sitesN: 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 yearaNumber of sentinel sites with at least one trained member of staff / Number of surveillance sitesQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites100.0%3
Utility
 • Number of decisions taken by the INRB and/or the DLM based on influenza sentinel surveillance resultsb,dN/AQuestionnaire survey for DLM and INRB42
 • Proportion of surveillance staff that receive the following reports: (i) Virological surveillance report, (ii) Syndromic surveillance report, (iii) Influenza bulletinaNumber of surveillance staff that receive reports / Number of surveillance staffQuestionnaire for surveillance staff at sentinel sites77.1%2
 • Estimation of burden of influenza-associated illness using surveillance dataNot applicablePublication on burden of influenza-associated ILI and SARI.1 [13]3
 • Contribution to influenza Regional/Global studiesNot applicablePublications on Regional/Global studies with DRC influenza data3 [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