Evaluation of the Measles Surveillance System in Kaduna State, Nigeria (2010-2012).

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the case-based measles surveillance system in Kaduna State of Nigeria and identify gaps in its operation.IntroductionIn Africa, approximately 13 million cases, 650,000 deaths due to measles occur annually, with sub-Saharan Africa having the highest morbidity and mortality. Measles infection is endemic in Nigeria and has been documented to occur all year round, despite high measles routine and supplemental immunization coverage. The frequent outbreaks of measles in Kaduna State prompted the need for the evaluation of the measles case-based surveillance system.MethodsWe interviewed stakeholders and conducted a retrospective record review of the measles case-based surveillance data from 2010 – 2012 and adapted the 2001 CDC guidelines on surveillance evaluation and the Framework for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems for Early Detection of Outbreaks, to assess the systems usefulness, representativeness, timeliness, stability, acceptability and data quality. We calculated the annualized detection rate of measles and non-measles febrile rash, proportion of available results, proportion of LGAs (Districts) that investigated at least one case with blood, proportion of cases that were IgM positive and the incidence of measles. We compared the results with WHO(2004) recommended performance indicators to determine the quality and effectiveness of measles surveillance system.ResultsAccording to the Stakeholders, the case-based surveillance system was useful and acceptable. Median interval between specimen collection and release of result was 7days (1 – 25 days) in 2010, 38 days (Range: 16 – 109 days) in 2011 and 11 days (Range: 1 – 105 days) in 2012. The annualized detection rate of measles rash in 2010 was 2.1 (target: 32), 1.0 (target: 32) in 2011 and 1.4 (target: 32) in 2012. The annualized detection rate of non-measles febrile rash in 2010 was 2.1 (target: 32), 0.6 (target: 32) in 2011 and 0.8 (target: 32) in 2012. Case definitions are simple and understood by all the operators.ConclusionThis evaluation showed that the surveillance system was still useful. Also, the efficiency and effectiveness of the laboratory component as captured by the “median interval between specimen collection and the release of results improved in 2010 and 2012 compared to 2011. However, there was a progressive decline in the timeliness and completeness of weekly reports in the years under review.