Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27776493›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Survey of the perceptions of key stakeholders on the attributes of the South African Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System.

F G Benson, A Musekiwa, L Blumberg, L C Rispel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System with a Data Architecture Approach: a Systematic Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F G BensonNational Department of Health, Private Bag X828, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. frewbenson@gmail.com.
A MusekiwaDivision of Global Health Protection, United States Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC), PO Box 9536, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
L BlumbergSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
L C RispelCentre for Health Policy & DST/NRF SARChI Chair on the Health Workforce, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrews Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Department of Health · ZANational Health Laboratory Service · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

CGH CDC HHS U19 GH000571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn effective and efficient notifiable diseases surveillance system (NDSS) is essential for a rapid response to disease outbreaks, and the identification of priority diseases that may cause national, regional or public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs). Regular assessments of country-based surveillance system are needed to enable countries to respond to outbreaks before they become PHEICs. As part of a broader evaluation of the NDSS in South Africa, the aim of the study was to determine the perceptions of key stakeholders on the national NDSS attributes of acceptability, flexibility, simplicity, timeliness and usefulness.

methodsDuring 2015, we conducted a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of communicable diseases coordinators and surveillance officers, as well as members of NDSS committees. Individuals with less than 1 year experience of the NDSS were excluded. Consenting participants completed a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire elicited information on demographic information and perceptions of the NDSS attributes. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and the unconditional logistic regression model.

resultsMost stakeholders interviewed (53 %, 60/114) were involved in disease control and response. The median number of years of experience with the NDSS was 11 years (inter-quartile range (IQR): 5 to 20 years). Regarding the NDSS attributes, 25 % of the stakeholders perceived the system to be acceptable, 51 % to be flexible, 45 % to be timely, 61 % to be useful, and 74 % to be simple. Health management stakeholders perceived the system to be more useful and timely compared to the other stakeholders. Those with more years of experience were less likely to perceive the NDSS system as acceptable (OR 0.91, 95 % CI: 0.84-1.00, p = 0.041); those in disease detection were less likely to perceive it as timely (OR 0.10, 95 % CI: 0.01-0.96, p = 0.046) and those participating in National Outbreak Response Team were less likely to perceive it as useful (OR 0.38, 95 % CI: 0.16-0.93, p = 0.034).

conclusionThe overall poor perceptions of key stakeholder on the system attributes are a cause for concern. The study findings should inform the revitalisation and reform of the NDSS in South Africa, done in consultation and partnership with the key stakeholders.

Indexed as

PerceptionAdultAgedCommunicable Disease ControlCommunicable DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesDisease OutbreaksFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic Health SurveillanceSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesAcceptabilityFlexibilityNotifiable diseasesSimplicitySurveillance systemTimelinessUsefulness

Identifiers

PMID27776493
PMCPMC5078943
OpenAlexW2537642512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.