| Literature DB >> 34794356 |
Soran Amin Hamalaw1, Ali Hattem Bayati1, Muhammed Babakir-Mina2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of the surveillance system can be defined by attributes such as completeness, timeliness, usefulness, simplicity, flexibility, acceptability, and reliability. This study aims to assess these quality features of the communicable disease surveillance system (CDSS) in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.Entities:
Keywords: Iraq; Kurdistan; assessment; communicable diseases; surveillance; system evaluation; timeliness
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34794356 PMCID: PMC8607484 DOI: 10.1177/00469580211056045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inquiry ISSN: 0046-9580 Impact factor: 1.730
Figure 1.The randomly selected health facilities for assessment of CDSS in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
Surveillance reporting timeliness and completeness of CDSS in the Kurdistan region of Iraq from 2018–2020.
| Quality Attributes | No of HFs | 2018, % | 2019, % | 2020, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness | ||||
| Erbil | 101 | 88 | 95 | 54 |
| Sulaimani and Halabja | 114 | 72 | 99 | 93 |
| Duhok | 76 | 94 | 100 | 26 |
| Total | 291 | 83 | 97.87 | 68.86 |
| Completeness | ||||
| Erbil | 101 | 87 | 98 | 98 |
| Sulaimani and Halabja | 114 | 73 | 99 | 100 |
| Duhok | 76 | 93 | 94 | 100 |
| Total | 291 | 83 | 97.25 | 99.21 |
The quality attributes (simplicity, usefulness, flexibility, acceptability, and reliability) of CDSS in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
| Quality Attributes | Frequencies 74 | Percentage 100% | Total scores 1.00 (100%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplicity | |||
| Very difficult | 0 | 0 | 0.75 (75%) |
| Difficult | 8 | 10.8 | |
| Moderate | 8 | 10.8 | |
| Simple | 54 | 73 | |
| Very simple | 4 | 5.4 | |
| Usefulness | |||
| Very Poor
| 0 | 0 | 0.72 (72%) |
| Poor | 7 | 9.5 | |
| Fair | 24 | 32.4 | |
| Good | 36 | 48.6 | |
| Excellent | 7 | 9.5 | |
| Flexibility | |||
| Very poor | 0 | 0 | 0.67 (67%) |
| Poor | 8 | 10.8 | |
| Fair | 32 | 43.2 | |
| Good | 34 | 45.9 | |
| Excellent | 0 | 0 | |
| Acceptability | |||
| Very poor | 0 | 0 | 0.72 (72%) |
| Poor | 10 | 13.5 | |
| Fair | 11 | 14.9 | |
| Good | 50 | 67.6 | |
| Excellent | 3 | 4.1 | |
| Reliability | |||
| Very poor | 2 | 2.7 | 0.69 (69%) |
| Poor | 10 | 13.5 | |
| Fair | 16 | 21.6 | |
| Good | 45 | 60.8 | |
| Excellent | 1 | 1.4 | |
aVery Poor = 20%, Poor = 40%, Fair = 60%, Good = 80%, Excellent = 100.