Conference abstract

Evaluation of measles surveillance system in Ondo State, 2011 - 2015

Pan African Medical Journal - Conference Proceedings. 2018:8(98).13 Apr 2018.
doi: 10.11604/pamj-cp.2018.8.98.698
Archived on: 13 Apr 2018
Contact the corresponding author
Keywords: Evaluation, measles, surveillance, Ondo State
Opening ceremony

Evaluation of measles surveillance system in Ondo State, 2011 - 2015

Adeola Dorcas Aderinwale1,&, Abdullahi Musa2, Abisola Oladimeji2, Gboyega Famokun3, Folayan Abolaji Waheed3

1Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme, Abuja, Nigeria, 2African Field Epidemiology Network, Nigeria, 3State Ministry of Health, Ondo State, Nigeria

&Corresponding author
Adeola Dorcas Aderinwale, Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme, Asokoro, Abuja, Nigeria


Introduction: measles is a highly infectious viral disease occurring globally, with associated high morbidity and mortality. Periodic evaluation of public health surveillance system gives an information of the system performance in relation to personnel, allocated resources and the health of the populace. The objectives of the evaluation were to describe the process of the measles surveillance system, assess its key attributes, and performance through identified indicators to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

Methods: Ondo State is located in South West Nigeria. CDC Guideline for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance System, 2001 and WHO African Region Measles Surveillance Guideline, 2004 were adopted. Twenty one Stakeholders were interviewed, evaluation of performance indicators and system attributes: simplicity, sensitivity, acceptability, timeliness, data quality, stability and representativeness was done with analysis of 2011 - 2015 data from the measles surveillance system to generate proportions and frequencies.

Results: the operational process involved detailed reporting and feedback mechanisms. Number of suspected cases were 777, Case Fatality Rate was 0.9% while the Predictive Value Positive was 43.7%. Stakeholders reported that the case definitions were easy to understand but there is a laboratory component to the system though all were willing to continue to be part of the system. The incidence rate of Measles was highest in 2013 (5.0/100,000 population) with the most affected group between 1 to 4 years for all the years reviewed. Annualized Non Measles Febrile Rash Illness rate (NMFRI-rate) met the recommended target of ≥ 2/100,000 population for all the years reviewed. The timeliness of reporting from the sites met the recommended target of ≥ 80% in all LGAs for all the years reviewed except in the year 2015 with < 80%. Funding is donor - driven, there were missing information in the data especially the laboratory data. Reporting sites are only 133 of the 496 health facilities in the state. However, all other indicators met the recommended WHO target.

Conclusion: the system was found to be sensitive, useful and acceptable to stakeholders but not simple or stable. The data officers need supportive supervision to enhance data quality and more facilities need to be enrolled as reporting sites to enhance representativeness.