Title |
Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, May 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Clementine Calba, Flavie L Goutard, Linda Hoinville, Pascal Hendrikx, Ann Lindberg, Claude Saegerman, Marisa Peyre |
Abstract |
Regular and relevant evaluations of surveillance systems are essential to improve their performance and cost-effectiveness. With this in mind several organizations have developed evaluation approaches to facilitate the design and implementation of these evaluations. In order to identify and to compare the advantages and limitations of these approaches, we implemented a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). After applying exclusion criteria and identifying other additional documents via citations, 15 documents were retained. These were analysed to assess the field (public or animal health) and the type of surveillance systems targeted; the development process; the objectives; the evaluation process and its outputs; and the attributes covered. Most of the approaches identified were general and provided broad recommendations for evaluation. Several common steps in the evaluation process were identified: (i) defining the surveillance system under evaluation, (ii) designing the evaluation process, (iii) implementing the evaluation, and (iv) drawing conclusions and recommendations. A lack of information regarding the identification and selection of methods and tools to assess the evaluation attributes was highlighted; as well as a lack of consideration of economic attributes and sociological aspects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 25% |
France | 1 | 13% |
Palestine, State of | 1 | 13% |
Sweden | 1 | 13% |
Nigeria | 1 | 13% |
Senegal | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
Gambia | 1 | <1% |
Cameroon | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 517 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 108 | 21% |
Researcher | 68 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 33 | 6% |
Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 6% |
Other | 88 | 17% |
Unknown | 147 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 113 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 73 | 14% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 35 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 24 | 5% |
Other | 79 | 15% |
Unknown | 169 | 32% |