http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4943-2723
Figures
Abstract
Background
Involving community members in identifying and reporting health events for public health surveillance purposes, an approach commonly described as community-based surveillance (CBS), is increasingly gaining interest. We conducted a scoping review to list terms and definitions used to characterize CBS, to identify and summarize available guidance and recommendations, and to map information on past and existing in-country CBS systems.
Methods
We searched eight bibliographic databases and screened the worldwide web for any document mentioning an approach in which community members both collected and reported information on health events from their community for public health surveillance. Two independent reviewers performed double blind screening and data collection, any discrepancy was solved through discussion and consensus.
Findings
From the 134 included documents, several terms and definitions for CBS were retrieved. Guidance and recommendations for CBS were scattered through seven major guides and sixteen additional documents. Seventy-nine unique CBS systems implemented since 1958 in 42 countries were identified, mostly implemented in low and lower-middle income countries (79%). The systems appeared as fragmented (81% covering a limited geographical area and 70% solely implemented in a rural setting), vertical (67% with a single scope of interest), and of limited duration (median of 6 years for ongoing systems and 2 years for ended systems). Collection of information was mostly performed by recruited community members (80%).
Citation: Guerra J, Acharya P, Barnadas C (2019) Community-based surveillance: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215278
Editor: Linda A. Selvey, University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Received: December 17, 2018; Accepted: March 31, 2019; Published: April 12, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 World Health Organization. Licensee Public Library of Science. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The systematic review upon which this article was based was jointly funded by grants from the French Republic and the United States of America Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the World Health Organization.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Public health surveillance is an essential function of a health system, defined as “the systematic on-going collection, collation and analysis of data for public health purposes and the timely dissemination of public health information for assessment and public health response as necessary” [1].
Conventionally, public health surveillance relies on healthcare facilities where information is captured from in- and outpatients [2]. However, it has been suggested that only a portion of sick individuals visit healthcare facilities [3–8], due to unavailability or inaccessibility of health facilities [6]; a reliance on self or alternative medication [8]; or an assumption that disease condition is not serious enough to seek treatment [6,7]. Therefore, to complement healthcare facility-based surveillance, another approach is to involve community members in identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community.
This approach was the topic of a 2001 handbook for community surveillance coordinators published to “encourage the involvement of communities themselves both in detecting and reporting diseases and in preventing disease and promoting positive health habits” [9]. Involvement of communities was also part of the 2001 technical guidelines for integrated disease surveillance and response used in the African region which sought to: “emphasize community participation in detection and response to public health problems” [10]. In its 2010 edition, the term “community-based surveillance” was introduced and a definition provided: “trained surveillance informants identify and report events in the community that have public health significance” [11]. In 2014 and 2015, the World Health Organization published a “guide for establishing community-based surveillance” and a dedicated training manual [12,13]. This was followed by a guidance document on “community-based surveillance” published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in 2017 [14]. These additional guides provided much needed support to involve community members in the approach of identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community. However, certain discrepancies were seen between the guides and information on certain aspects of such an approach were missing. Furthermore, the occurrence of the term “community-based surveillance” in the literature increased, but it was often used to characterize very different approaches. For example, while some documents used the term to describe the involvement of community members for public health surveillance [4], others used it to describe studies performed in healthcare facilities by dedicated surveyors for research purposes [15].
Overall, there is a lack of standardization of the approach involving community members in identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community for public health surveillance (hereafter designated by the acronym CBS), namely a consensual term and definition to characterize it, and the actors and processes involved in its implementation and operation.
In order to support the further standardization of CBS, a scoping review was conducted to systematically list terms and definitions used to characterize CBS, to identify and summarize guidance documents and recommendations available for its implementation and operation, and to map the details of any past and existing examples of in-country CBS systems.
Materials and methods
This scoping review follows the method proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [16] and modified by Levac [17]. The protocol of the study was not registered.
Eligibility criteria
In this scoping review, we defined our inclusion criteria as any document mentioning an approach or system with the following characteristics:
- collection of information from the community performed by community members, and
- reporting of this information for public health surveillance purposes (i.e. monitoring of the health status of a population or early detection of public health risks and events).
We defined a community as people living in a defined geographical area.
The following exclusion criteria were applied:
- ad hoc prevalence or incidence study for a specific condition;
- description of an approach or system solely involving collection of information from healthcare facilities;
- language other than English, French, Spanish or Portuguese;
- full text unavailable; or
- conference presentation.
No publication time limit was used for the selection of the documents.
Search of information sources
A search for eligible documents was conducted using the eight following bibliographic databases: Medline, Global Index Medicus, Popline, Cochrane library, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Iris, The European Library, and Africabib.
The search strategy was designed to identify documents including: both concepts of community participation and public health surveillance, or terms denoting CBS. Tailored search requests were used to select documents from each bibliographic database. As an example, the search request used for Medline using Pubmed on the 28 March 2017 was: (("sentinel surveillance" [MeSH Terms] OR "population surveillance" [MeSH Terms] OR "public health surveillance" [MeSH Terms] OR surveillance [Title/Abstract] OR "public health surveillance") AND ("Community-Based Participatory Research" [MeSH Terms] OR "Community-Institutional Relations" [MeSH Terms] OR "Community Health Workers" [MeSH Terms] OR "volunteers" [MeSH Terms])) OR "community-based surveillance" [TIAB] OR "participatory surveillance" [TIAB] OR "household surveillance" [TIAB] OR "community based sentinel surveillance" [TIAB] OR "community based health reporting" [TIAB].
Additional searches were also conducted using the Google search engine on the worldwide web, where the 50 first results of each of four search requests were screened for suitability. Detailed search requests and search results from each database and the world-wide web are presented in the S1 Table.
Subsequently, the reference lists of each of the documents found to meet the inclusion criteria were also screened to identify any additional documents of interest.
Selection of sources of evidence
Two reviewers (JG and PA) independently screened in a blind standardized manner the titles and abstracts of each of the search results using the Rayyan web application [18]. Disagreements between reviewers on inclusion or exclusion were resolved by discussion and consensus. Further exclusion of the documents was performed during the data collection process (i.e. a document could be later excluded based on its full-text review).
Data charting process and data items
We developed a data collection form using the LimeSurvey software [19] to systematically list terms and definitions used to characterize CBS, identify and summarize guidance documents and recommendations available for its implementation and operation, and map the details of any past and existing examples of in-country CBS implementations. The variables collected are listed in Fig 1. The same two reviewers independently filled the data collection form for each included document. Any discrepancy in the collected information was resolved by discussion and consensus.
Synthesis of results
An analysis of the collected data on terms and definitions used for CBS and past and current examples of in-country CBS systems was performed using the R statistical software [20].
Data collected from different documents were consolidated for each unique CBS system identified.
Evidence tables were developed to present all collected information.
Available guidance and recommendations to implement or operate CBS were summarized.
Supplemental study on the usage of the term “community-based surveillance”
We conducted a supplemental study on the use of the term “community-based surveillance” in the literature. All unique documents retrieved from the search of information sources were screened anew by one reviewer, the sole inclusion criterion was the explicit mention of the term “community-based” and “surveillance” with or without other elaborative words in between in the title or abstract. Information was collected for the following variables: type of document and description of the approach termed as “community-based surveillance” in the document (full method available in S2 Text).
Role of the funding source
The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Results
Selection and characteristics of sources of evidence
One thousand nine hundred ninety-three documents were identified by the search strategies. After screening and selection, 134 were included in the review [3–5,9,11–14,21–146] as illustrated below in Fig 2.
The bibliographic reference and type of each included document are available in the S2 Table.
Terms and definitions used to characterize CBS
Sixty-six percent of documents (n = 88/134) used at least one specific term to denote the approach of involving community members in identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community for the purpose of public health surveillance. The remaining 46 documents mentioned such approach, but without a specific term to denote it. The most commonly used term was “community-based surveillance” (n = 46/88, 52% of documents), followed by “community event-based surveillance” (n = 7/88, 8%). In total, 44 unique terms to denote the concept of CBS were identified. All unique terms comprised two basic components: a component to denote the involvement of community members and a component to denote the concept of public health surveillance. A list of all the terms is available in the S2 Table.
Ten documents contained a specific definition of the term that was used for CBS (7%, n = 10/134) with eight unique definitions retrieved (see Table 1).
Available guidance and recommendations for the implementation and operation of CBS
Twenty-three documents (17%) contained guidance material or recommendations related to the planning, implementation or operation of a CBS system [4,9,11–14,22–38]. A summary of available guidance and recommendations is presented in the S1 Text. Seven of these documents were detailed guidance documents with a specific focus on CBS and are presented in Table 2. Many of these documents noted that it was crucial to keep the CBS systems simple, purposeful and easy to set up [14,29,30], with information collected only if it can lead to a response [14,29].
Several guidance documents provided simplified health events case definitions to be used for CBS, most of which could be found in an available World Health Organization guide for establishing a CBS system [12]. Whilst several documents highlighted the crucial role of feedback in ensuring an effective CBS system, there was almost a total lack of concrete guidance on how to provide such feedback. Similarly, no practical guidance’s or tools were found available to support the proper evaluation of the effectiveness and utility of a CBS system.
Descriptions of past and existing CBS systems
One hundred fourteen documents (85%) mentioned a past or existing in country-CBS system. From these, 79 unique CBS systems were identified.
The data collected for each unique CBS system is displayed in the S2 Table.
Missing information on CBS systems.
For each type of variable, the percentage of missing data was (n = 79 unique CBS systems): country 0%; start year 20%; end/ongoing year 22%; coverage 9%; setting 25%; purpose 28%; scope 0%; data collection actor 0%; data collection method 37%; data reporting method 53%, and frequency 24%; report recipient type 28%, and level 32%; performance indicators 75%.
Country of implementation.
CBS systems were identified in 42 countries (see Fig 3).
Operation period.
Ninety-two percent of identified CBS systems were established after 1980 (n = 58/63), with an upsurge notable in the period from 2001 to 2010 (45%, n = 28/63). The oldest system was established in 1958 [26]. Sixty-nine percent of systems were described as ongoing (n = 43/62) whilst the remaining 31% (n = 19/62) had ended. The median duration of operation of the ongoing CBS systems was 6 years (IQR [2 years; 13 years], n = 37). The longest-running CBS system was also the oldest, established in Guatemala for malaria surveillance 34 years ago in 1992 [26]. The median duration of operation for the ended CBS systems was 2 years (IQR [1 year; 3 years], n = 19), with a range of 1 month (Democratic Republic of the Congo for a measles outbreak [39]) to 6 years (Tanzania for children’s nutritional status monitoring [40]).
Coverage and setting.
CBS systems were mostly implemented in limited geographical areas (n = 58/72, 81%) and in the following settings:
- rural (n = 41/59, 70%),
- both rural and urban (n = 10/59, 17%),
- urban (n = 5/59, 8%),
- refugee settlements (n = 3/59, 5%).
Purpose.
Purposes of the systems were noted as:
- monitor the health status of a population (n = 26/57, 45%),
- early detect public health risks and events (n = 17/57, 30%),
- both above purposes (n = 14/57, 25%).
Scope.
The scope of the health events under surveillance are presented in Fig 4. Most systems focused on a single health condition or event (n = 53/79, 67%).
a includes influenza like illness and avian influenza; b includes cholera, acute gastrointestinal illnesses; c includes Buruli ulcer (n = 1), cutaneous leishmaniasis (n = 1), yaws (n = 1), smallpox (n = 1); d includes Ebola virus disease and dengue; e includes pregnancy complications (n = 2), low birth weight (n = 1), suicidal and self-injurious behaviour (n = 1); f includes maternal, neonatal, infant, under-five deaths.
Actors in charge of data collection.
Three different types of community members were identified in the documents as performing data collection (hereafter named as “data collectors”):
- locally recruited surveillance cadres (i.e. community members who were selected and recruited as volunteers or paid workers): n = 56/79 (71%);
- general community members (i.e. any community member could report an event): n = 12/79 (15%);
- a specified group of the community (i.e. certain group of community members such as teachers, students, community leaders): n = 3/79 (4%);
- more than one type of data collectors was present in 8 systems (10%).
Out of the 63 systems involving locally recruited surveillance cadres, 18 systems (29%) provided information on their selection processes. Selections were made either by community members (n = 12/18, 67%), local healthcare staff (n = 4/18, 22%), or by both community members and healthcare staff (n = 2/18, 11%). Information on the selection criteria used was available for 13 systems (21%), out of which two did not have formal selection criteria. Literacy was the most commonly used selection criterion (n = 10/11, 91%), which encompassed the ability to read and write (n = 7) and to hold at least a secondary level education (n = 3). Other frequently employed selection criteria included a motivation to work for the community (n = 6/11, 55%) and being someone respected in the community (n = 4/11, 36%).
Information on the use of incentives for data collectors to perform their duties was available for 21 systems (33%). In 16 systems (76%), data collection was performed on a voluntary basis. In 11 systems, the form of incentives given included monetary incentives (n = 4/11, 37%); material incentives (n = 3/11, 27%); service incentives (n = 1/11, 9%); both material and service incentives (n = 2/11, 18%); and both monetary and service incentives (n = 1/11, 9%).
Information on the training received by data collectors was provided for 18 systems (locally recruited surveillance cadres, n = 17; specific group of community members, n = 1). The training duration was: less than a week (n = 11/18, 61%), from one week to one month (n = 2/18, 11%), more than a month long (n = 5/18, 28%).
Data collection method.
Three data collection methods were used in the CBS systems:
- Active data collection (n = 21/50, 42%): locally recruited surveillance cadres proactively searched for diseases or events under surveillance by making home visits (n = 21/21, 100%) and actively meeting and talking to the community members (n = 5/21, 24%).
- Passive data collection (n = 11/50, 22%): surveillance actors collected information when a sick person visited them for diagnosis or treatment (n = 8/11, 73%); or when they received information on the occurrence of an event under surveillance (n = 3/11, 27%).
- Self-collection and reporting (n = 13/50, 26%): general community members collected information about themselves or their families and reported it, this was primarily used for triatomine bugs surveillance (n = 8/13, 62%) and for surveillance of influenza like illness (n = 4/13, 31%). In five systems (10%), several data collection methods were applied.
Data reporting method.
In most systems, surveillance actors visited a supervisor or vice-versa to submit or collect reports (n = 23/37, 62%). In 35% of the systems, reporting was done through telecommunication (n = 13/37), using a combination of phone calls (n = 6), mobile phone applications or SMS (n = 5), websites (n = 4), fax (n = 1), or wireless radio (n = 1). In one system, reporting involved both making visits and making phone calls [41]. All systems reporting via telecommunication were implemented in the last 15 years (n = 11, two systems had missing information for their start year). All systems started after 2010 reported via telecommunication (n = 4, three systems had missing information for the reporting method). The four CBS systems using websites to report were implemented in high-income countries for self-reporting of influenza like illness.
Most systems reported data in a routine manner using predetermined schedule (n = 37/60, 62%): weekly (n = 12), monthly (n = 18), less than monthly (n = 11), combination of several frequencies (n = 6). In 30% of the systems (n = 18/60), data was reported on an ad hoc manner; whilst 8% of the systems (n = 5/60) reported data in both an ad hoc and routine manner. In 59% of the systems with an early detection purpose, reporting was done in an ad hoc manner (n = 16/27), while in 90% of the systems with a monitoring purpose, reporting was done in a routinely manner (n = 28/31). Reporting was commonly done to the local level (n = 46/54, 86%), and the most common recipient was a health authority (n = 41/57, 72%).
Performance indicators.
Estimates of the sensitivity (i.e. capacity of the system to detect the events under surveillance) or of the positive predictive value (i.e. capacity of the system to correctly detect the events under surveillance) were available for seven CBS systems (see Table 3). The completeness of data reporting was provided for ten CBS systems (see Table 4).
Supplemental study: Usage of the term “community-based surveillance” in the literature
Out of the 1494 unique search results from the scoping review, 232 documents used the term “community-based surveillance” in their title or abstract (full results in S2 Text). Description of the approach termed as “community-based surveillance”, including the source of data, was available for 177 documents.
Around one third of these documents used the term “community-based surveillance” to describe the approach we defined as CBS, where data was collected from the community by community members for public health surveillance purposes (31%, n = 54/177). All of these documents, except two, were included in our CBS scoping review (out of the two excluded documents, for one [147] there was collection but no reporting of information for public health surveillance, and for the other [148] CBS was discussed as one of the possible strategies for control of Buruli ulcer, without providing any specifics).
The second most frequent use of the term “community-based surveillance” in the literature was to denote a research design where information was collected from the community by surveyors or healthcare facility staff (28%, n = 50/177) for research purposes.
The third most frequent use of the term “community-based surveillance” met none of the criteria that we used in the scoping review to describe a CBS system (22%, n = 39/177). They generally described a specific research study where surveyors collected data on a sample of enrolled patients at healthcare facilities.
The other approaches termed as “community-based surveillance” were: community members collecting information from the community for research purposes (11%, n = 20); non-community members collecting information from the community for public health surveillance purposes (5%, n = 9); surveyors collecting information from healthcare facility patients for public health surveillance purposes (3%, n = 5).
Discussion
Summary of evidence
This scoping review retrieved 134 documents mentioning the approach of involving community members in identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community for public health surveillance. As many as one third of the documents did not use any term to characterize CBS, and amongst others, 44 unique terms were used. Only 10 documents provided a definition for CBS, showing a similar display of the lack of clarity surrounding CBS.
Seven major guidance documents on CBS were identified [9,12–14,24,27,28], including three guides solely focused on CBS [9,12,14]. Guidance and recommendations on CBS practices were identified in sixteen additional documents. Description of the specific activities required for CBS implementation and operations were scattered across several documents. Their consolidation into a single process, with clear expectations on the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved, would be highly beneficial to facilitate the set up and operation of a CBS system. A similar case is also noted for recommendations related to the best modalities for the selection, training, and incentivisation of locally recruited community members for CBS.
This review identified 79 unique examples of CBS systems implemented since 1958 across 42 countries. They were mostly implemented in low and lower-middle income countries (79%), and appeared to be fragmented (81% covering a limited geographical area and 70% solely implemented in a rural setting), vertical (67% with a single scope of interest), and of limited duration (median duration of operation: 6 years for ongoing systems and 2 years for ended systems). This highlights the lack of scale up of pilot programs, and the lack of integration of CBS into the overall national public health surveillance system. CBS implementation was mainly performed in rural settings and the best approaches to implement it in urban settings were still to be defined [50].
Only 72% of the systems provided information on their purpose: 45% were implemented solely to monitor the health status of a population, 30% solely to early detect and respond to public health events, and 25% for both purposes. Eighty percent of the systems recruited community members as volunteers or paid workers to collect and report data, the others relied on general community members or a specific group in the community.
A surge in the use of telecommunication for CBS reporting has taken place in the last fifteen years, which is linked with the dramatic surge of phone connectivity in most countries. The use of telecommunication creates an opportunity to enhance completeness and timeliness of reporting [51,54,55] and to improve data management. However, the specific challenges generated by the use of digital tools for public health surveillance, such as their cost and sustainability, cannot be ignored [149].
Only a fraction of the documents provided evaluation results of the implemented systems. Estimates of sensitivity and positive predictive value were available for seven systems, and results of completeness of data reporting for ten. However, these estimates were computed in an inconsistent manner, and usually for a short time duration, making it difficult to generalize or compare findings. Minimum requirements and sound methodology to evaluate CBS systems and disseminate evaluation results are thus urgently needed.
Limitations
The main limitation of included documents was the inconsistent manner in which information on CBS systems was available, with a lot of missing information for several aspects of the systems. One explanation is our broad inclusion criteria which included documents that did not have a main focus on the description of a CBS system, but merely mentioned its existence. We tried as much as possible to correct this limitation by consolidating all available information for each specific system from several documents.
For this scoping review, we strove to apply best standards with double-blind screening and data collection, discrepancies being solved through consensus. We tried to be as sensitive as possible using tailored search algorithms to each bibliographic database, specific terms to search the worldwide web, screening the references of each included document, removing any time limits, and looking at publications in four languages (English, French, Portuguese and Spanish). Exclusion of papers based on language may have missed some CBS implementations, especially in Asia. There is also a risk that a publication bias may have favoured externally supported CBS implementations, the existence of such a bias and its magnitude are yet to be studied.
The major challenge we faced for this scoping review was to decide what should be considered as “community-based surveillance”. Indeed, lack of prior consensus in the term and definition for CBS mandated that we define in advance what should be encompassed in the CBS concept. We decided as minimum requirements that community members be both the source of information and the actors collecting it, and that this information be used for public health surveillance purposes. In addition, we had to define what we considered as a community. For the sake of simplicity, we defined a community as people living in a defined geographical area, excluding healthcare facilities from the community level. The rationale behind the exclusion of healthcare facilities was to avoid healthcare facility-based surveillance systems that are already well-known and broadly used for public health surveillance. With our inclusion criteria we considered any document presenting both concepts of community and public health surveillance. This may explain why a third of the included documents didn’t use any term to denote CBS. To ensure the validity of our inclusion criteria we conducted a supplemental study on the approaches termed as “community-based surveillance” in the literature (see S2 Text). Only 22% of the documents with mention of the term “community-based surveillance” in their title or abstract were included in our scoping review. Indeed, the sole purpose of 61% of these approaches termed as “community-based surveillance” was research. For the remaining approaches termed as “community-based surveillance”, and aimed at public health surveillance, 79% fulfilled our inclusion criteria of community members being both the source of information and the actors collecting it.
To our knowledge, and the best of our search efforts, this is the first scoping review on CBS to date. In 2002, Oum has conducted a previous narrative review on CBS as part of his Doctorate in Public Health [150], documents of interest from his review were included in ours.
Conclusions
This scoping review, through the mapping of practices, guidance and recommendations on CBS, provides the foundational work to standardize and improve the involvement of community members in identifying and reporting health events occurring in their community for public health surveillance. As such, in June 2018, the results of this scoping review were presented to international experts convened by the World Health Organization [151]. They used these results and their experience to reach a consensus on the term “community-based surveillance” and its definition: “Community-based surveillance is the systematic detection and reporting of events of public health significance within a community by community members” [151]. They also agreed on a list of good practices and challenges for CBS and provided a list of priority activities to be conducted to further promote and support CBS implementation. The top three proposed activities were: develop and compile case studies of existing CBS, consolidate existing guidance and fulfil existing knowledge gaps in global CBS guidelines, and create a CBS community of practice with a shared repository of available material [151].
It was no surprise that a large majority of the CBS systems identified in this scoping review were implemented in low and lower-middle income countries. Healthcare facility-based surveillance systems face numerous challenges in these countries [152,153], including: healthcare access; communication with hard to reach areas; lack of human, logistic and financial resources; lack of coordination between multiple surveillance systems; lack of use of data for response. The burden put by health information systems on healthcare facility staff is often overwhelming [154–156]. CBS can appear as an opportunity to tackle some of these challenges. Yet, these challenges should also be stark reminders of the need to carefully craft CBS systems to their specific setting, so that their contribution to the public health surveillance system is not hindered by the creation of an additional vertical system, or by adding undue burden on selected community members [157]. Further research is needed to do so. A first step could indeed be to consolidate available guidance and recommendations, and develop standardized protocols and indicators to evaluate the effectiveness and integration of existing CBS systems into the overall health information system.
Supporting information
S1 Text. Summary of available guidance and recommendations for community-based surveillance.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215278.s003
(PDF)
S2 Text. Supplemental study on the usage of the term “community-based surveillance” in the literature.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215278.s004
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank Lisa Stevens for reviewing the paper and Pierre Nabeth and Sébastien Cognat for their strategic oversight.
2019 World Health Organization. Licensee Public Library of Science. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. International health regulations (2005). Third edition. Geneva; 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/9789241580496/en/
- 2.
World Health Organization. Early detection, assessment and response to acute public health events: implementation of Early Warning and Response with a focus on Event-Based Surveillance. Interim version. Lyon; 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/WHO_HSE_GCR_LYO_2014.4/en/
- 3.
Qomariyah SN. A community-based surveillance system for maternal deaths in Indonesia [dissertation]. University of Aberdeen; 2013 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.ethos.569639
- 4. Oum S, Chandramohan D, Cairncross S. Community-based surveillance: a pilot study from rural Cambodia. Trop Med Int Health. 2005;10: 689–97. pmid:15960708
- 5. Deepa TM, Venkata Rao E, Patil RR, Samuel R. Operational feasibility of establishing community reporting systems. Natl Med J India. 2008;21: 166–70. pmid:19267036
- 6. O’Donnell O. Access to health care in developing countries: breaking down demand side barriers. Cad Saude Publica. 2007;23: 2820–34. pmid:18157324
- 7. Taber JM, Leyva B, Persoskie A. Why do people avoid medical care? A qualitative study using national data. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30: 290–7. pmid:25387439
- 8. Groce NE, Reeve ME. Traditional healers and global surveillance strategies for emerging diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 1996;2: 351. pmid:8969252
- 9.
Handbook for community surveillance coordinators to support community participation in detection and prevention of polio and other diseases. Version 2. Academy for Educational Development; 2001. CHANGE Project. USAID cooperative agreement No.: HRN-A-00-98-00044-00.
- 10.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the African Region. Harare and Atlanta; 2001 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12082/cdc_12082_DS1.pdf?
- 11.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the African Region. Brazzaville and Atlanta; 2010 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.afro.who.int/publications/technical-guidelines-integrated-disease-surveillance-and-response-african-region-0
- 12.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa. Integrated disease surveillance and response in the African Region: a guide for establishing community based surveillance. Brazzaville; 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/a-guide-for-establishing-community-based-surveillance-102014_0.pdf
- 13.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa. Integrated Diseases Surveillance and Response in the African Region. Community-based Surveillance (CBS): Training Manual. Brazzaville; 2015 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-06/community-based-surveillance_idsr_training-manual.pdf
- 14.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Community-based surveillance: guiding principles. Geneva; 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/document/community-based-surveillance-guiding-principles/
- 15. Kikuti M, Cunha GM, Paploski IAD, Kasper AM, Silva MMO, Tavares AS, et al. Spatial Distribution of Dengue in a Brazilian Urban Slum Setting: Role of Socioeconomic Gradient in Disease Risk. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003937. pmid:26196686
- 16. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8: 19–32.
- 17. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci IS. 2010;5: 69. pmid:20854677
- 18. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 210.
- 19.
LimeSurvey project team, Schmitz C. LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool. Hamburg; 2015 [cited 2019 Mar 9]. http://www.limesurvey.org.
- 20.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 9]. https://www.R-project.org/.
- 21. Chau PD. Evaluation of Disease Surveillance System to Detect Disease Outbreak in Cambodia. J. Natl. Inst. Public Health. 2007;56: 412.
- 22. Curry D, Bisrat F, Coates E, Altman P. Reaching beyond the health post: Community-based surveillance for polio eradication. Dev Pract. 2013;23: 69–78.
- 23. Okiror SO, Bisrat F, Lutukai M, Bhui BR. Community-based surveillance on polio eradication in the Horn of Africa. Afr Health Monit. 2015;19: 44–5.
- 24.
International Rescue Committee. Standard Operating Procedure for community event-based surveillance for Ebola virus disease in Sierra Leone. New York; 2015 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/community_event_based_surveillance_sops.pdf
- 25.
UKaid and Ebola Response Consortium. Evaluation of the functionality and effectiveness of community event-based surveillance (CEBS) in Sierra Leone. 2015.
- 26. Ruebush TK, Godoy HA. Community participation in malaria surveillance and treatment. I. The Volunteer Collaborator Network of Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;46: 248–60. pmid:1558264
- 27.
World Health Organization Western Pacific Region. A Guide to Establishing Event-based Surveillance. Manila; 2008 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. www.wpro.who.int/emerging_diseases/documents/docs/eventbasedsurv.pdf
- 28.
World Health Organization. Ebola and Marburg virus disease epidemics: preparedness, alert, control, and evaluation. Geneva; 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/manual_EVD/en/
- 29.
Rosales A, Galindo J, Flores A. A community based surveillance system for maternal and early neonatal complications: the Intibuca case study. Baltimore: Catholic Relief Services; 2004.
- 30. Shayo E, Mboera LEG, MMbuji P, Rumisha SF, Senkoro KP, Mwami AJ. The role of community and traditional healers in communicable disease surveillance and management in Babati and Dodoma Districts, Tanzania. Tanzan Health Res Bull. 2003;5: 48–55.
- 31. Hashimoto K, Yoshioka K. Review: surveillance of Chagas disease. Adv Parasitol. 2012;79: 375–428. pmid:22726647
- 32. Ruebush TK, Weller SC, Klein RE. Qualities of an ideal volunteer community malaria worker: a comparison of the opinions of community residents and national malaria service staff. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39: 123–31. pmid:8066483
- 33. Cerón A, Ortiz MR, Álvarez D, Palmer GH, Cordón-Rosales C. Local disease concepts relevant to the design of a community-based surveillance program for influenza in rural Guatemala. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15: 69. pmid:27108224
- 34. Brookes VJ, Kennedy E, Dhagapan P, Ward MP. Qualitative Research to Design Sustainable Community-Based Surveillance for Rabies in Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4. pmid:28275611
- 35. Abad-Franch F, Vega MC, Rolón MS, Santos WS, Rojas de Arias A. Community participation in Chagas disease vector surveillance: systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5: e1207. pmid:21713022
- 36. Ndiaye SM, Quick L, Sanda O, Niandou S. The value of community participation in disease surveillance: A case study from Niger. Health Promot Int. 2003;18: 89–98. pmid:12746380
- 37. Immink MDC. Community-based food and nutrition surveillance as an instrument of socio-economic development in Central America: a point of view. Food Nutr Bull. 1988;10: 13–5.
- 38.
BASIC II. BASICS II country report: Zambia. Arlington: Basic Support for Institutionalizing Child Survival Project (BASICS II) for the United States Agency for International Development; 2004.
- 39. N’Goran AA, Ilunga N, Coldiron ME, Grais RF, Porten K. Community-based measles mortality surveillance in two districts of Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of Congo. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6: 537. pmid:24344804
- 40.
Chorlton R. Improving child survival and nutrition: the joint WHO/UNICEF Nutrition Support Programme in Iringa, Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: UNICEF; 1989.
- 41. Afele M. Volunteers vital for counting births and deaths in Ghana. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89: 322–3. pmid:21556297
- 42. Imourou BCA, Perini P, Sohoundé L, Ahanhanzo C. [Community-based surveillance of maternal, infant, and child (under-5) mortality in the health district of Tanguiéta (Benin) from 2006 through 2010]. Med Sante Trop. 2013;23: 332–6.
- 43. Ghebreyesus TA, Witten KH, Getachew A, Yohannes AM, Tesfay W, Minass M, et al. The community-based malaria control programme in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. A review of programme set-up, activities, outcomes and impact. Parassitologia. 2000;42: 255–90. pmid:11686085
- 44. Brieger WR, Kendall C. Learning from local knowledge to improve disease surveillance: perceptions of the guinea worm illness experience. Health Educ Res. 1992;7: 471–85. pmid:10148747
- 45. Brieger WR, Kendall C. The Yoruba farm market as a communication channel in guinea worm disease surveillance. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42: 233–43. pmid:8928032
- 46. Ratnayake R, Crowe SJ, Jasperse J, Privette G, Stone E, Miller L, et al. Assessment of Community Event-Based Surveillance for Ebola Virus Disease, Sierra Leone, 2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22: 1431–7. pmid:27434608
- 47. Merk H, Kühlmann-Berenzon S, Bexelius C, Sandin S, Litton J-E, Linde A, et al. The validity of self-initiated, event-driven infectious disease reporting in general population cohorts. PloS One. 2013;8: e61644. pmid:23613891
- 48. Chaki PP, Dongus S, Fillinger U, Kelly A, Killeen GF. Community-owned resource persons for malaria vector control: enabling factors and challenges in an operational programme in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania. Hum Resour Health. 2011;9: 21. pmid:21955856
- 49. Silva R, Amouzou A, Munos M, Marsh A, Hazel E, Victora C, et al. Can Community Health Workers Report Accurately on Births and Deaths? Results of Field Assessments in Ethiopia, Malawi and Mali. PloS One. 2016;11: e0144662. pmid:26731544
- 50.
Maes EF, Zimicki S. An evaluation of community-based surveillance in the northern region of Ghana. UNICEF, 2000.
- 51. Pongvongsa T, Nonaka D, Kobayashi J, Mizoue T, Phongmany P, Moji K. Determinants of monthly reporting by village health volunteers in a poor rural district of Lao PDR. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2011;42: 1269–81. pmid:22299454
- 52. Stone E, Miller L, Jasperse J, Privette G, Diez Beltran JC, Jambai A, et al. Community Event-Based Surveillance for Ebola Virus Disease in Sierra Leone: Implementation of a National-Level System During a Crisis. 2016;8. pmid:28123860
- 53. Lado M, Mackoy S, Steve B, Rumunu J. Evaluation of community-based surveillance for Guinea worm, South Sudan, 2006. South Sudan Med J. 2012;5: 72–4.
- 54. Barnett I, Yosellina , Sulistyo S, Befani B, KariSari K, Sharmin S, et al. Mixed-method impact evaluation of a mobile phone application for nutrition monitoring in Indonesia. Institute of Development Studies and World Vision; 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/mixed-method-impact-evaluation-of-a-mobile-phone-application-for-nutrition-monitoring-in-indonesia/
- 55. Nonaka D, Pongvongsa T, Nishimoto F, Nansounthavong P, Hongwei J, Vongsouvanh A, et al. Successful mobile phone network-based approach to integration of the health care system in rural Laos: strengthening lay health worker performance. Rural Remote Health. 2014;14: 2588. pmid:24547711
- 56. Dyal Chand A, Khale M. A community based surveillance system for perinatal and neonatal care. Indian Pediatr. 1989;26: 1115–21. pmid:2630471
- 57. Asres M, Bisrat F, Kebede Y, Asegedew B, Getachew B, Fantahun M. Knowledge and practice of frontline health workers (Health Extension Workers and Community Volunteer Surveillance Focal Persons) towards acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) case detection and reporting in pastoralist and semi-pastoralist areas of Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2013;51: 51–7. pmid:24380207
- 58. Bisimwa G, Mambo T, Mitangala P, Schirvel C, Porignon D, Dramaix M, et al. Nutritional monitoring of preschool-age children by community volunteers during armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Food Nutr Bull. 2009;30: 120–7. pmid:19689090
- 59. Dil Y, Strachan D, Cairncross S, Korkor AS, Hill Z. Motivations and challenges of community-based surveillance volunteers in the northern region of Ghana. J Community Health. 2012;37: 1192–8. pmid:22614535
- 60. Hashimoto K, Zúniga C, Nakamura J, Hanada K. Integrating an infectious disease programme into the primary health care service: a retrospective analysis of Chagas disease community-based surveillance in Honduras. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015. pmid:25889097
- 61. Kilonzo A, Kouletio M, Whitehead SJ, Curtis KM, McCarthy BJ. Improving surveillance for maternal and perinatal health in 2 districts of rural Tanzania. Am J Public Health. 2001;91: 1636–40. pmid:11574326
- 62. Kok MC, Muula AS. Motivation and job satisfaction of health surveillance assistants in Mwanza, Malawi: an explorative study. Malawi Med J. 2013;25: 5–11. pmid:23717748
- 63. Dinku B, Kumie A, Bisrat F. Linking community volunteer surveillance focal persons with health extension workers on polio surveillance. Ethiop Med J. 2013;51: 71–6. pmid:24380209
- 64. Okanurak K, Sornmani S, Chitprarop U. The role of folk healers in the malaria volunteer program in Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1991;22: 57–64. pmid:1948260
- 65. Wójcik OP, Brownstein JS, Chunara R, Johansson MA. Public health for the people: participatory infectious disease surveillance in the digital age. Emerging themes in epidemiology. 2014;11: 7. pmid:24991229
- 66. Ngirabega JDD, Hakizimana C, Wendy L, Munyanshongore C, Donnen P, Dramaix-Wilmet M. [Reliability of anthropometric measurements performed by community nutrition workers in a community-based pediatric growth-monitoring program in rural Rwanda]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58: 409–14. pmid:21094002
- 67. Bose A, Sandal Sejbaek C, Suganthy P, Raghava V, Alex R, Muliyil J, et al. Self-harm and self-poisoning in southern India: choice of poisoning agents and treatment. Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14: 761–5. pmid:19497080
- 68.
Community event-based surveillance (CEBS) in Sierra Leone. International Rescue Committee Sierra Leone Program; 2015 Oct. Quarter 4 Report. Agreement No: AID-OFDA-G-15-00237. Sponsored by the USAID office of foreign disaster assistance.
- 69. Hashimoto K, Alvarez H, Nakagawa J, Juarez J, Monroy C, Cordón-Rosales C, et al. Vector control intervention towards interruption of transmission of Chagas disease by Rhodnius prolixus, main vector in Guatemala. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012;107: 877–87. pmid:23147143
- 70. Hii JL, Chee KC, Vun YS, Awang J, Chin KH, Kan SK. Sustainability of a successful malaria surveillance and treatment program in a Runggus community in Sabah, east Malaysia. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1996;27: 512–21. pmid:9185261
- 71. Kyei-Faried S, Appiah-Denkyira E, Brenya D, Akuamoa-Boateng A, Visser L. The Role of Community-Based Surveillance in Health Outcomes Measurement. Ghana Med J. 2006;40: 26–30. pmid:17299561
- 72. Lapau B. The role of village malaria workers as village surveillance agents in Bekasi Regency, Indonesia. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1983;14: 12–7. pmid:6612415
- 73. Nsona H, Mtimuni A, Daelmans B, Callaghan-Koru JA, Gilroy K, Mgalula L, et al. Scaling up integrated community case management of childhood illness: update from Malawi. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87: 54–60. pmid:23136278
- 74. Paolotti D, Carnahan A, Colizza V, Eames K, Edmunds J, Gomes G, et al. Web-based participatory surveillance of infectious diseases: the Influenzanet participatory surveillance experience. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20: 17–21. pmid:24350723
- 75. Purdin S, Spiegel P, Mack KP, Millen J. Surveillance beyond camp settings in humanitarian emergencies: findings from the Humanitarian Health Information Management Working Group. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24: s202–205. pmid:19806541
- 76. Ramsey K, Hingora A, Kante M, Jackson E, Exavery A, Pemba S, et al. The Tanzania Connect Project: a cluster-randomized trial of the child survival impact of adding paid community health workers to an existing facility-focused health system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13: S6.
- 77. Smith S, Deveridge A, Berman J, Negin J, Mwambene N, Chingaipe E, et al. Task-shifting and prioritization: a situational analysis examining the role and experiences of community health workers in Malawi. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12: 24. pmid:24885454
- 78. Waiswa P, Peterson SS, Namazzi G, Ekirapa EK, Naikoba S, Byaruhanga R, et al. The Uganda Newborn Study (UNEST): an effectiveness study on improving newborn health and survival in rural Uganda through a community-based intervention linked to health facilities—study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13: 213.
- 79. Chaki PP, Mlacha Y, Msellemu D, Muhili A, Malishee AD, Mtema ZJ, et al. An affordable, quality assured community-based system for high-resolution entomological surveillance of vector mosquitoes that reflects human malaria infection risk patterns. Malaria J. 2012;11: 172.
- 80. Bowden S, Braker K, Checchi F, Wong S. Implementation and utilisation of community-based mortality surveillance: a case study from Chad. Confl Health. 2012;6: 11. pmid:23186330
- 81. Crowe S, Hertz D, Maenner M, Ratnayake R, Baker P, Lash RR, et al. A plan for Community Event-Based Surveillance to Reduce Ebola Transmission—Sierra Leone, 2014–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2015;64: 70–3.
- 82.
Wendy Morotti, Briac V, Papowitz H. Community-Based Pandemic Preparedness. Multi-sectorial actions for safer, healthier and more resilient communities. [cited 2019 Mar 28]. http://towardsasaferworld.org/sites/default/files/TASWreportoncommunitypreparedness.pdf
- 83. Abass KM, Werf van der TS, Phillips RO, Sarfo FS, Abotsi J, Mireku SO, et al. Buruli ulcer controlin a highly endemic district in Ghana: role of community-based surveillance volunteers. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92: 115–7. pmid:25331802
- 84. Anselmi M, Moreira J-M, Caicedo C, Guderian R, Tognoni G. Community participation eliminates yaws in Ecuador. Trop Med Int Health. 2003;8: 634–8. pmid:12828546
- 85. Bajardi P, Vespignani A, Funk S, Eames KT, Edmunds WJ, Turbelin C, et al. Determinants of follow-up participation in the Internet-based European influenza surveillance platform Influenzanet. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16: e78. pmid:24613818
- 86. Cairncross S, Braide EI, Bugri SZ. Community participation in the eradication of guinea worm disease. Acta Trop. 1996;61: 121–36. pmid:8740890
- 87. Choi Y, El Arifeen S, Mannan I, Rahman SM, Bari S, Darmstadt GL, et al. Can mothers recognize neonatal illness correctly? Comparison of maternal report and assessment by community health workers in rural Bangladesh. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15: 743–53. pmid:20406425
- 88. Cox J, Dy Soley L, Bunkea T, Sovannaroth S, Soy Ty K, Ngak S, et al. Evaluation of community-based systems for the surveillance of day three-positive Plasmodium falciparum cases in Western Cambodia. Malar J. 2014;13: 282. pmid:25052222
- 89. Cwik MF, Barlow A, Goklish N, Larzelere-Hinton F, Tingey L, Craig M, et al. Community-Based Surveillance and Case Management for Suicide Prevention: An American Indian Tribally Initiated System. Am J Public Health. 2014;104: e18–23.
- 90. Darmstadt G, El Arifeen S, Choi Y, Bari S, Rahman S, Mannan I, et al. Household surveillance of severe neonatal illness by community health workers in Mirzapur, Bangladesh: coverage and compliance with referral. Health policy and planning. 2010;25: 112–24. pmid:19917652
- 91. Goutard FL, Binot A, Duboz R, Rasamoelina-Andriamanivo H, Pedrono M, Holl D, et al. How to reach the poor? Surveillance in low-income countries, lessons from experiences in Cambodia and Madagascar. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120: 12–26. pmid:25842000
- 92. Kaneko A. A community-directed strategy for sustainable malaria elimination on islands: short-term MDA integrated with ITNs and robust surveillance. Acta Trop. 2010;114: 177–83. pmid:20132788
- 93. Mangklasriri R, Pichaipat V, Varavithya W. Effectiveness of diarrhoeal diseases surveillance by village health volunteer. J Med Assoc Thai. 1986;69: 91–3. pmid:3805953
- 94. Moshabela M, Sene M, Nanne I, Tankoano Y, Schaefer J, Niang O, et al. Early detection of maternal deaths in Senegal through household-based death notification integrating verbal and social autopsy: a community-level case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15: 16. pmid:25609079
- 95. Pyakurel R, Sharma N, Paudel D, Coghill A, Sinden L, Bost L, et al. Cause of Death in Women of Reproductive Age in Rural Nepal Obtained Through Community-Based Surveillance: Is Reducing Maternal Mortality the Right Priority for Women’s Health Programs? Health Care Women Int. 2015;36: 655–62.
- 96. Ruebush TK, Zeissig R, Koplan JP, Klein RE, Godoy HA. Community participation in malaria surveillance and treatment. III. An evaluation of modifications in the Volunteer Collaborator Network of Guatemala. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1994;50: 85–98. pmid:8304577
- 97. Sharma R, Ratnesh L, Karad AB, Kandpal H, Dhariwal AC, Ichhupujani RL. Communicable disease outbreak detection by using supplementary tools to conventional surveillance methods under Integrated Disease Surveillance Project (IDSP). India. J Commun Dis. 2009;41: 149–59.
- 98. Assessment of the Community-Based Surveillance System in Ghana and its role in dracunculiasis eradication. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2003;78: 321–3. pmid:14526665
- 99. Joos O, Silva R, Amouzou A, Moulton LH, Perin J, Bryce J, et al. Evaluation of a mHealth Data Quality Intervention to Improve Documentation of Pregnancy Outcomes by Health Surveillance Assistants in Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e014538. pmid:26731401
- 100. Larsen DA, Chisha Z, Winters B, Mwanza M, Kamuliwo M, Mbwili C, et al. Malaria surveillance in low-transmission areas of Zambia using reactive case detection. Malar J. 2015;14: 465. pmid:26586264
- 101. Leal-Neto OB, Dimech GS, Libel M, Oliveira W, Ferreira JP. Digital disease detection and participatory surveillance: overview and perspectives for Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2016;50: 17. pmid:27191153
- 102. Meyers DJ, Ozonoff A, Baruwal A, Pande S, Harsha A, Sharma R, et al. Combining Healthcare-Based and Participatory Approaches to Surveillance: Trends in Diarrheal and Respiratory Conditions Collected by a Mobile Phone System by Community Health Workers in Rural Nepal. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0152738. pmid:27111734
- 103. Mitsunaga T, Hedt-Gauthier BL, Ngizwenayo E, Farmer DB, Gaju E, Drobac P, et al. Data for Program Management: An Accuracy Assessment of Data Collected in Household Registers by Community Health Workers in Southern Kayonza, Rwanda. J Community Health. 2015;40: 625–32. pmid:25502593
- 104. Pagliari Claudia, and Vijaykumar Santosh. Digital Participatory Surveillance and the Zika Crisis: Opportunities and Caveats. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;10: e0004795. pmid:27294787
- 105. Pini A, Merk H, Carnahan A, Galanis I, VAN Straten E, Danis K, et al. High added value of a population-based participatory surveillance system for community acute gastrointestinal, respiratory and influenza-like illnesses in Sweden, 2013–2014 using the web. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145: 1193–202.
- 106. Meyers DJ, Filkins M, Bangura AH, Sharma R, Baruwal A, Pande S, et al. Management challenges in mHealth: Failures of a mobile community health worker surveillance programme in rural Nepal. BMJ Innov. 2017;3: 19–25
- 107.
Bugri DS. Community-based surveillance in Ghana. National surveillance unit, 2005.
- 108. Joos O, Amouzou A, Silva R, Banda B, Park L, Bryce J, et al. Strengthening Community-Based Vital Events Reporting for Real-Time Monitoring of Under-Five Mortality: Lessons Learned from the Balaka and Salima Districts in Malawi. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0145238.
- 109. Munos MK, Koffi AK, Sangho H, Traoré MG, Diakité M, Silva R. Strengthening Community Networks for Vital Event Reporting: Community-Based Reporting of Vital Events in Rural Mali. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0132164. pmid:26605540
- 110. Ahmed AEAM, Ahmed IAM. Nutrition surveillance in the Sudan: a community-based approach. East Mediterranean Health Journal. 1996;2: 229–35.
- 111.
World Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia. Role of village health volunteers in avian influenza surveillance in Thailand. New Delhi; 2007 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. http://apps.searo.who.int/PDS_DOCS/B0404.pdf
- 112. Amaral J, Leite AJM, Cunha AJLA, Victora CG. Impact of IMCI health worker training on routinely collected child health indicators in Northeast Brazil. Health Policy Plann. 2005;20: i42–8.
- 113. Bellali H, Hchaichi A, Harizi C, Mrabet A, Chahed MK. Comparison between active surveillance and passive detection of zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis in endemic rural areas in Central Tunisia, 2009 to 2014. Asian Pac J Trop Dis. 2015;5: 515–9.
- 114. Fauveau V., Chakraborty J., Sarder A.M., Khan M.A., Koenig M.A. Measles among under- 9-month-olds in rural Bangladesh: Its significance for age at immunization. BULL WHO. 1991;69: 67–72. pmid:2054922
- 115. García-Zapata MT, Marsden PD. Chagas’ disease: control and surveillance through use of insecticides and community participation in Mambaí, Goiás, Brazil. Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1993;27: 265–79.
- 116. Hashimoto K, Zúniga C, Romero E, Morales Z, Maguire JH. Determinants of health service responsiveness in community-based vector surveillance for Chagas disease in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003974. pmid:26252767
- 117. Kim SY, Rochat R, Rajaratnam A, Digirolamo A. Evaluating completeness of maternal mortality reporting in a rural health and social affairs unit in Vellore, India, 2004. J Biosoc Sci. 2009;41: 195–205. pmid:18922191
- 118. Materia E, Mele A, Mehari W, Rosmini F, Stazi MA, Damen HM, et al. Estimation of early childhood mortality using preceding birth technique in a community-based setting. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 1993;29: 465–7. pmid:8172467
- 119. Parente CC, Bezerra FSM, Parente PI, Dias-Neto RV, Xavier SCC, Ramos AN, et al. Community-based entomological surveillance reveals urban foci of chagas disease vectors in Sobral, State of Ceara, Northeastern Brazil. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0170278.
- 120. Amouzou A, Kidanu A, Taddesse N, Silva R, Hazel E, Bryce J, et al. Using Health Extension Workers for Monitoring Child Mortality in Real-Time: Validation against Household Survey Data in Rural Ethiopia. PloS One. 2015;10: e0126909. pmid:26606713
- 121. Edward A, Ernst P, Taylor C, Becker S, Mazive E. Examining the evidence of under-five mortality reduction in a community-based programme in Gaza, Mozambique. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;101: 814–22. pmid:17482222
- 122. Freund P, Kalumba K. Information for health development. World Health Forum. 1986;7: 185–90.
- 123. Gisore P, Shipala E, Otieno K, Rono B, Marete I, Tenge C, et al. Community based weighing of newborns and use of mobile phones by village elders in rural settings in Kenya: a decentralised approach to health care provision. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2012;12: 15. pmid:22429731
- 124. Hopkins D, Ruiz-Tiben E. Surveillance for dracunculiasis, 1981–1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries. 1992;41: 1–13.
- 125. Jerome N, Ricci J. Food and nutrition surveillance: An international overview. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997;65: 1198–1202.
- 126. Mahmood S, Ayub M. Accuracy of primary health care statistics reported by community based lady health workers in district Lahore. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2010;60: 649–53. pmid:20726196
- 127. Suva E. Gathering information for health. World Health Forum. 1986;7: 340–4.
- 128. Dalton C, Durrheim D, Fejsa J, Francis L, Carlson S, d’Espaignet ET, et al. Flutracking: a weekly Australian community online survey of influenza-like illness in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2009;33: 316–22. pmid:20043602
- 129. Marquet RL, Bartelds AIM, van Noort SP, Koppeschaar CE, Paget J, Schellevis FG, et al. Internet-based monitoring of influenza-like illness (ILI) in the general population of the Netherlands during the 2003–2004 influenza season. BMC Public Health. 2006;6: 242.
- 130. Noort va SP, Muehlen M, Rebelo de Andrade H, Koppeschaar C, Lima Lourenço JM, Gomes MGM. Gripenet: an internet-based system to monitor influenza-like illness uniformly across Europe. Euro Surveill. 2007;12: E5–6.
- 131. Tilston NL, Eames KTD, Paolotti D, Ealden T, Edmunds WJ. Internet-based surveillance of Influenza-like-illness in the UK during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health. 2010;10: 650. pmid:20979640
- 132.
Pan American Health Organization. Informe: XIIa. Reunión Intergubernamental INCOSUR/Chagas. Santiago; 2003 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=15349&lang=es
- 133. Villela MM, Souza JB, Mello VP, Azeredo BV de M, Dias JCP. [Entomological surveillance for Chagas disease in the mid-western region of Minas Gerais State, Brazil, from 2000 to 2003]. Cad Saude Publica. 2005;21: 878–86. pmid:15868046
- 134. Prata N, Gerdts C, Gessessew A. An innovative approach to measuring maternal mortality at the community level in low-resource settings using mid-level providers: a feasibility study in Tigray, Ethiopia. Reprod Health Matters. 2012;20: 196–204. pmid:22789098
- 135. Jaravaza VS, McCoy MC, Dando BC. Unified National Health Information System. Part II. The Village Health Worker Health Information System. Cent Afr J Med. 1982;28: 57–65. pmid:7116432
- 136. Valyasevi A, Winichagoon P, Dhanamitta S. Community-based surveillance for action towards health and nutrition: experience in Thailand. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 1995;16.
- 137. Rehn M, Carnahan A, Merk H, Kühlmann-Berenzon S, Galanis I, Linde A, et al. Evaluation of an Internet-based monitoring system for influenza-like illness in Sweden. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e96740.
- 138. Admon AJ, Bazile J, Makungwa H, Chingoli MA, Hirschhorn LR, Peckarsky M, et al. Assessing and improving data quality from community health workers: a successful intervention in Neno, Malawi. Public Health Action. 2013;3: 56–9. pmid:25767750
- 139. Lamunu M, Lutwama JJ, Kamugisha J, Opio A, Nambooze J, Ndayimirije N, et al. Containing a haemorrhagic fever epidemic: the Ebola experience in Uganda (October 2000-January 2001). Int J Infect Dis. 2004;8: 27–37. pmid:14690778
- 140. Ngabo F, Nguimfack J, Nwaigwe F, Mugeni C, Muhoza D, Wilson DR, et al. Designing and Implementing an Innovative SMS-based alert system (RapidSMS-MCH) to monitor pregnancy and reduce maternal and child deaths in Rwanda. Pan Afr Med J. 2012;13: 31. pmid:23330022
- 141. Wanderley DM. [Entomological surveillance of Chagas’ disease in the State of Sao Paulo]. Rev Saude Publica. 1991;25: 28–32.
- 142. Ghebreyesus A, Alemayehu T, Bosma A, Hanna Witten K, Teklehaimanot A. Community participation in malaria control in Tigray region Ethiopia. Acta Tropica. 1996;61: 145–56. pmid:8740892
- 143. Issah K, Nartey K, Amoah R, Bachan EG, Aleeba J, Yeetey E, et al. Assessment of the usefulness of integrated disease surveillance and response on suspected ebola cases in the Brong Ahafo Region, Ghana. Infect Dis Poverty. 2015;4: 17. pmid:25878792
- 144. Bhatia S, Dranyi T, Rowley D. A social and demographic study of Tibetan refugees in India. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54: 411–22. pmid:11824917
- 145. Sam-Abbenyi A, Dama M, Graham S, Obate Z. Dracunculiasis in Cameroon at the threshold of elimination. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28: 163–8. pmid:10195683
- 146. Jones AH, Becknell S, Withers PC, Ruiz-Tiben E, Hopkins DR, Stobbelaar D, et al. Logistics of Guinea worm disease eradication in South Sudan. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90: 393–401. pmid:24445199
- 147. Vanek MJ, Shoo B, Mtasiwa D, Kiama M, Lindsay SW, Fillinger U, et al. Community-based surveillance of malaria vector larval habitats: a baseline study in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2006;6: 154. pmid:16776829
- 148. Webb BJ, Hauck FR, Houp E, Portaels F. Buruli ulcer in West Africa: strategies for early detection and treatment in the antibiotic era. East Afr J Public Health. 2009;6: 144–7. pmid:20000019
- 149. Aranda-Jan CB, Mohutsiwa-Dibe N, Loukanova S. Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa. BMC Public Health. 2014;14: 188. pmid:24555733
- 150.
Oum S. Development, implementation and evaluation of community-based surveillance system in rural Cambodia [dissertation]. University of London; 2002. [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://doi.org/10.17037/PUBS.04646504
- 151.
Technical contributors to the June 2018 WHO meeting. A definition for community-based surveillance and a way forward: results of the WHO global technical meeting, France, 26 to 28 June 2018. Euro Surveill. 2019;24:.
- 152.
United States General Accounting Office. Global Health. Challenges in Improving Infectious Disease Surveillance Systems. Washington: 2001 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. https://www.gao.gov/assets/240/232631.pdf
- 153. Phalkey RK, Yamamoto S, Awate P, Marx M. Challenges with the implementation of an Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) system: systematic review of the lessons learned. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30: 131–43. pmid:24362642
- 154.
Bosch-Capblanch X, Zuske M, Auer C, O’Donnell D, Guterman A, Curry M, et al. Characterisation of the Health Information System in Cote d’Ivoire. 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. http://paperbased.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PHISICC3_CIV_Report_v10.pdf.
- 155.
Bosch-Capblanch X, Auer C, Njepuome N, Saric J, Jarrett C, Guterman A, et al. Characterisation of the Health Information System in Nigeria. 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. http://paperbased.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PHISICC3_NGA_Report_v08.pdf.
- 156.
Bosch-Capblanch X, Auer C, Mandjate S, Muloliwa A, Guterman A, Curry M, et al. Characterisation of the Health Information System in Mozambique. 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 28]. http://paperbased.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PHISICC3_MOZ_Report_v5.pdf.
- 157. Calain P. From the field side of the binoculars: A different view on global public health surveillance. Health Policy Plan. 2007;22: 13–20. pmid:17237490