Conference abstract
Evaluation of measles case-based surveillance system in Edo State, Nigeria, January to December, 2016
Pan African Medical Journal - Conference Proceedings. 2017:3(88).27
Oct 2017.
doi: 10.11604/pamj-cp.2017.3.88.228
Archived on: 27 Oct 2017
Contact the corresponding author
Keywords: Measles, Edo State of Nigeria, surveillance system evaluation
Oral presentation
Evaluation of measles case-based surveillance system in Edo State, Nigeria, January to December, 2016
Ibrahim Abiodun Seriki1,&, Mohammed Shakir Balogun1, Osamwonyi Irowa1
1Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program, Abuja, Nigeria
&Corresponding author
Ibrahim Abiodun Seriki, Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program, Abuja, Nigeria
Introduction: measles is one of the leading causes of death in children despite availability of effective and accessible measles vaccine. In 2015, over 134,200 deaths were recorded globally. Measles infection is endemic in Nigeria with outbreaks recorded all year round. In Nigeria, measles surveillance is active and it involves case reporting and feedback. The objectives of measles surveillance include predicting outbreaks by identifying geographic locations and age groups at risk and evaluating vaccination strategies. We described the surveillance system, assessed the system attributes and performance indicators.
Methods: we interviewed 20 stakeholders using CDC 2001 guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance system. Guidelines for Measles Surveillance and Outbreak response in Nigeria was also used to assess the systems attributes and performance indicators. We obtained January-December 2016 measles surveillance data from Edo State Ministry of Health. Data was analyzed using Epi Info 7.0 to determine frequencies, rates and proportions.
Results: out of 142 suspected cases, 7 (4.9%) were laboratory confirmed (Measles IgM+). Only one (5.5%) Local Government Areas (LGA) reported at least 2 cases a year (Target 80%). Annual rate of investigation of suspected measles case was 4.4/100,000 (Target 2/100,000). Proportion of samples that arrived at laboratory within 48 hours was 8% (Target 80%). Proportion of test results received within a week was 62% (Target 80%). Proportion of samples arriving at laboratory in good condition was 72% (Target 90%). Out of the 20 interviewed stakeholders, 16 (80%) found the system complex. All (100%) found the system to be useful and representative. However, 14 (70%) will benefit from quarterly re-training.
Conclusion: the system was complex: useful and representative. The surveillance system is not meeting its objectives of detecting and predicting outbreaks. Timeliness of sample arrival at the laboratory and feedback needs to be improved.
