ArticleOne health outlook2026
SWOT analysis of Mpox surveillance in high-burden districts in Uganda, February-March 2025.
Article in One health outlook, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrom July 2024–February 2025, three-quarters of the districts in Uganda experienced mpox outbreaks, with sustained transmission in urban cities and towns. Following the rise in cases and severe outcomes, there was an urgent need to assess sub-national surveillance capacities to inform improvements in mpox response. This study aimed to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to mpox surveillance in Uganda’s high-burden districts and document lessons learned for responding to future outbreaks.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study during February–March 2025 in 30 purposively selected districts across five high-burden regions of Uganda. Participants were drawn from regional, district, facility, and community levels, including surveillance officers, clinicians, laboratory personnel, and community health leaders. Data were collected through focus group discussions using semi-structured interview guides. Notes were manually coded by two researchers and analyzed thematically using a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) framework. Sub-themes were developed inductively, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
resultsA total of twenty focus group discussions were conducted across five high-burden regions. Participants identified key strengths in mpox surveillance, including functional regional emergency coordination centers, onsite capacity building in digital tools like Go.Data, dedicated surveillance personnel, prior outbreak response experience, and the presence of trusted community health structures. However, notable weaknesses included inaccurate contact information, delayed laboratory test results, workforce shortages, misdiagnosis at lower health facilities, limited digital capacity, inadequate isolation facilities, and stockouts of essential supplies, food, and personal protective equipment. Key opportunities included scaling capacity-building efforts and enhancing surveillance infrastructure, such as call centers and toll-free lines, while surveillance threats included community fear of isolation and strain of concurrent outbreaks such as Ebola.
conclusionUganda’s mpox surveillance revealed key strengths, including functional regional coordination hubs, trusted community health structures, and dedicated surveillance personnel that supported early detection. However, gaps such as limited human resources, delayed laboratory results, stockouts, and fear of isolation hindered effective response. Addressing these challenges through investments in decentralized coordination, digital tools, surge staffing, and supply chain systems could enhance future surveillance efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.