Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fr72s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-22T20:50:48.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Perceptions of Healthcare Workers on the Attributes of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response System in Zimbabwe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Farai Mteliso*
Affiliation:
Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Department of Management Information Systems, School of Applied Sciences, Cyprus International University, Cyprus, Turkey
Ahmet Adalier
Affiliation:
Institute of Graduate Studies and Research, Department of Management Information Systems, School of Applied Sciences, Cyprus International University, Cyprus, Turkey
Noble J. Malunguza
Affiliation:
Department of Insurance and Actuarial Science, Faculty of Commerce, National University of Science and Technology, Ascot, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Edward T. Chiyaka
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences & Outpatient Practice, Wingate University School of Pharmacy, Wingate, NC, USA
*
Corresponding author: Farai Mteliso; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective

To investigate healthcare workers’ perceptions of the integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) strategy.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers (HCWs) was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 to assess their perceptions of the IDSR system attributes.

Results

Of the 409 respondents, 12 (2.9%) reported no prior training on disease surveillance. The IDSR was deemed simple, acceptable, useful, and timely by most participants. There were sharp differences in perceptions of flexibility and simplicity between doctors and the other healthcare professionals. However, acceptability, timeliness, and usefulness were uniformly perceived. Healthcare workers with at least 11 years of experience perceived the usefulness of the IDSR system significantly higher than those with lesser years of experience. However, work experience did not have an impact on HCWs perceptions of the simplicity, timeliness, and flexibility of the IDSR system.

Conclusions

Most healthcare workers have positive perceptions of the IDSR approach. However, there are reservations about how well the system can adapt to changing conditions and demands (flexibility) and how well it simplifies the implementation processes. These findings demonstrate the necessity of adopting cutting-edge strategies for capacity building as well as ongoing professional development of healthcare professionals responsible for the implementation of the IDSR strategy.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boutayeb, A. The burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases in developing countries. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. Published online 2010:531546. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Top 10 Causes of Death. World Health Organization. Published 2020. Accessed June 16 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-deathGoogle Scholar
Folayan, MO, Abeldaño Zuñiga, RA, Virtanen, JI, et al. Associations between COVID-19 testing status, non-communicable diseases and HIV status among residents of sub-Saharan Africa during the first wave of the pandemic. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1). doi:10.1186/s12879-022-07498-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troeger, C, Blacker, BF, Khalil, IA, et al. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of diarrhoea in 195 countries: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Infect Dis. 2018; 18(11):12111228. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30362-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Introduction to Public Health Surveillance Public Health 101 Series|CDC. www.cdc.gov. Published July 15, 2020. Accessed June 20 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/training/publichealth101/surveillance.htmlGoogle Scholar
Thacker, SB, Berkelman, RL. Public health surveillance in the United States. Epidemiol Rev. 1988;10(1):164190. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serrano, M, Esther, P. Spatial and spatio-temporal methods for public health surveillance. rodericuves. Published online 2012. Accessed June 27, 2022. https://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/24922Google Scholar
Nsubuga, P, White, ME, Thacker, SB, et al. Public Health Surveillance: A Tool for Targeting and Monitoring Interventions. Nih.gov. Published 2011. Accessed May 18 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11770/Google Scholar
Maponga, BA, Chirundu, D, Shambira, G, et al. Evaluation of the notifiable diseases surveillance system in sanyati district, Zimbabwe, 2010-2011. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;19. doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.19.278.5202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mairosi, N, Tshuma, C, Juru, TP, et al. Evaluation of notifiable disease surveillance system in Centenary District, Zimbabwe, 2016. Open J Epidemiol. 2017;07(03):251261. doi:10.4236/ojepi.2017.73019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph Wu, TS, Kagoli, M, Kaasbøll, JJ, et al. Integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) in Malawi: implementation gaps and challenges for timely alert. Uthman, O, ed. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0200858. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200858CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toda, M, Zurovac, D, Njeru, I, et al. Health worker knowledge of integrated disease surveillance and response standard case definitions: a cross-sectional survey at rural health facilities in Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5028-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masiira, B, Nakiire, L, Kihembo, C, et al. Evaluation of integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) core and support functions after the revitalisation of IDSR in Uganda from 2012 to 2016. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6336-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, FG, Musekiwa, A, Blumberg, L, et al. Survey of the perceptions of key stakeholders on the attributes of the South African Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3781-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng’etich, AKS, Voyi, K, Mutero, CM. Evaluation of health surveillance system attributes: the case of neglected tropical diseases in Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10443-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Government of Zimbabwe. Public Health Act CHAPTER 15:09. No. 11 of 2018. Accessed July 4, 2022. http://www.cfuzim.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/healthact18.pdfGoogle Scholar
Padingani, M, Marape, G, Hwalima, Z, et al. Evaluation of perinatal mortality surveillance system in the city of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Open J Epidemiol. 2021;11(02):124134. doi:10.4236/ojepi.2021.112012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsitsi, JP, Nomagugu, N, Gombe, NT, et al. Evaluation of the notifiable diseases surveillance system in Beitbridge District, Zimbabwe 2015. Open J Epidemiol. 2015;05(03):197203. doi:10.4236/ojepi.2015.53024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimsimbe, M, Mucheto, P, Govha, E, et al. An evaluation of the notifiable disease surveillance system in Chegutu district, Zimbabwe, 2020: a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2022;41. doi:10.11604/pamj.2022.41.215.33712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fall, IS, Rajatonirina, S, Yahaya, AA, et al. Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) strategy: current status, challenges and perspectives for the future in Africa. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(4). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001427CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed