Indian journal of public health · 2026
Evaluation of Malaria Surveillance System in Government Health Facilities in Six Districts of State Chhattisgarh, India, 2023.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gahwai Dharmendra Kumar, Kaviprawin Mogan, Panigrahi Deepak Kumar, Das Jaswant Kumar, Patel Kalyani, Roy Meenakshi, Tigga Seema, Jain Tripti, Patel Yogesh, Ramasamy Aarthy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chhattisgarh state accounts for 18% of the malaria burden and 40% of malaria deaths in India. Malaria surveillance is implemented through the Integrated Disease Surveillance System (IDSP).
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the malaria surveillance system in six districts of Chhattisgarh, India, in 2023.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using the Centers for Disease Control guidelines for evaluation. We included 1276 syndromic (S), 110 Presumptive (P), and 100 Laboratory (L) form reporting units through simple random sampling. We interviewed the surveillance officer, epidemiologist, and data manager at the state and district levels. We abstracted the P and L forms from the sampled facilities. We analyzed timeliness (forms reporting within 24 h of identification), sensitivity (reported to surveillance after identification), data quality (complete and valid entry in key variables), and usefulness attributes.
RESULTS: Among 1442 P-forms, the surveillance system reporting is sensitive to capture 84 (5.8%) of cases. Similarly, among 11,510 L-forms, the system captured 3334 (29%) cases. All the reported cases in surveillance had complete entries in key variables. Among cases reported in the system, 44/84 (52.4%) of P-forms and 2461/3418 (72%) of L-forms had valid entries in key variables. Malaria surveillance is useful at the district and state levels to monitor the disease trend, detect clusters, and act early to prevent outbreaks.
CONCLUSION: Malaria surveillance has inadequate reporting on sensitivity and data quality. Identifying the factors for low sensitivity and implementing quality improvement initiatives for better reporting of the malaria surveillance system.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the malaria surveillance system in six districts of Chhattisgarh, India, in 2023.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using the Centers for Disease Control guidelines for evaluation. We included 1276 syndromic (S), 110 Presumptive (P), and 100 Laboratory (L) form reporting units through simple random sampling. We interviewed the surveillance officer, epidemiologist, and data manager at the state and district levels. We abstracted the P and L forms from the sampled facilities. We analyzed timeliness (forms reporting within 24 h of identification), sensitivity (reported to surveillance after identification), data quality (complete and valid entry in key variables), and usefulness attributes.
RESULTS: Among 1442 P-forms, the surveillance system reporting is sensitive to capture 84 (5.8%) of cases. Similarly, among 11,510 L-forms, the system captured 3334 (29%) cases. All the reported cases in surveillance had complete entries in key variables. Among cases reported in the system, 44/84 (52.4%) of P-forms and 2461/3418 (72%) of L-forms had valid entries in key variables. Malaria surveillance is useful at the district and state levels to monitor the disease trend, detect clusters, and act early to prevent outbreaks.
CONCLUSION: Malaria surveillance has inadequate reporting on sensitivity and data quality. Identifying the factors for low sensitivity and implementing quality improvement initiatives for better reporting of the malaria surveillance system.