Abstract

BackgroundSensitive surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) allows for rapid detection of polio outbreaks and provides essential evidence to support certification of the eradication of polio. However, accurately assessing the sensitivity of surveillance systems can be difficult due to limitations in the reliability of available performance indicators, including the rate of detection of non-polio AFP and the proportion of adequate stool sample collection. Recent field reviews have found evidence of surveillance gaps despite indicators meeting expected targets. MethodsWe propose two simple new approaches for AFP surveillance performance indicator analysis to supplement standard indicator analysis approaches commonly used by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI): (1) using alternative groupings of low population districts in the country (spatial binning) and (2) flagging unusual patterns in surveillance data (surveillance flags analysis). Using GPEI data, we systematically compare AFP surveillance performance using standard indicator analysis and these new approaches. ResultsApplying spatial binning highlights areas meeting surveillance indicator targets that do not when analyzing performance of low population districts. Applying the surveillance flags we find several countries with unusual data patterns, in particular age groups which are not well-covered by the surveillance system, and countries with implausible rates of adequate stool specimen collection. ConclusionsAnalyzing alternate groupings of administrative units is a simple method to find areas where traditional AFP surveillance indicator targets are not reliably met. For areas where AFP surveillance indicator targets are met, systematic assessment of unusual patterns (‘flags’) can be a useful prompt for further investigation and field review.

Highlights

  • Acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance is a critical component of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) [1,2]

  • While the true rate of non-polio causes of paralysis varies among areas, an non-polio AFP (NPAFP) rate 2 at the national and first administrative subnational level is used as an indicator of sufficient sensitivity in World Health Organization (WHO) regions where wild poliovirus is still endemic [5]

  • This highlights the need for approaches to identify areas where unexpected patterns in surveillance data might indicate a surveillance system that is not functioning as intended. In their December 2017 report, the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) of the GPEI stated ‘‘. . . much more emphasis should be given to analysis and verification of the standard indicators of reported acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) rates and stool specimen adequacy, and to closing the gaps in these areas as well as identifying patterns of reporting which are likely to represent data falsification” [16]. In response to both the limitations of available surveillance indicators and to the recommendation of the IMB, we developed two simple new approaches to analyze and present AFP surveillance data which may be used for monitoring and evaluation within the GPEI or within a country’s ministry of health

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) surveillance is a critical component of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) [1,2]. The two principal indicators used to measure the quality of AFP surveillance are the non-polio AFP (NPAFP) rate and stool specimen adequacy [5]. Accurately assessing the sensitivity of surveillance systems can be difficult due to limitations in the reliability of available performance indicators, including the rate of detection of non-polio AFP and the proportion of adequate stool sample collection. Methods: We propose two simple new approaches for AFP surveillance performance indicator analysis to supplement standard indicator analysis approaches commonly used by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI): (1) using alternative groupings of low population districts in the country (spatial binning) and (2) flagging unusual patterns in surveillance data (surveillance flags analysis). For areas where AFP surveillance indicator targets are met, systematic assessment of unusual patterns (‘flags’) can be a useful prompt for further investigation and field review

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call