Skip to main content

Table 1 Completeness of surveillance reporting pre and post training

From: Use of technology for public health surveillance reporting: opportunities, challenges and lessons learnt from Kenya

  Intervention counties Comparison counties
  Number of facility weekly reports received (a) Number of expected facility weekly reports (b) % Reporting rate
(a/b × 100) 		Number of facility weekly reports received (c) Number of expected facility weekly reports (d) % reporting rates
(c/dx100)
before training (15 weeks period) 12,716 28,352 45% 18,023 36,769 49%
after training (12 weeks period) 14,011 22,579 62% 15,332 29,290 52%
Difference before and after training    17%
(95% CI 16.14–17.86) 		   3%
(95% CI 2.23–3.77)
Chi square    1491    72
P value    < 0.0001    < 0.0001
  1. The difference between the change of 17% in the intervention group and 3% in the comparison group is 14% and part of this can be attributed to the intervention
  2. Notes on Table 1: The reduction in the number of expected weekly health facility reports before and after training is due to the difference in time period i.e. the number of weeks allocated for each category. There are 12 weeks of observation allocated after training and 15 weeks before training
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us