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

Table 1 Completeness of surveillance reporting pre and post training

	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

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
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

ISSN: 1471-2458