12Apr 2019

ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATED DISEASE SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED HEALTH FACILITIES OF SOUTHERN PROVINCE OF ZAMBIA.

  • texila american university.
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Background: Disease Surveillance has been the cornerstone of public health decision making and practice world over. Monitoring of the progress of IDSR Strategy has been an important component to ensure its sustainability in Zambia. The aim of this paper was to reflect upon the experiences in the province in order to learn lessons and improve systems. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to assess the structures, core and support surveillance functions using a modified checklist from the WHO questionnaire. The purpose of the study was designed to gain more information through observations, descriptions and review of document aspects of the IDSR situation. All 13 districts, national and provincial offices, 77 facilities and 13 laboratories were assessed. Literature review studies were from PubMed and database of WHO and CDC from 31BC-2017 was under taken assessing communicable diseases surveillance systems. Results: The Public Health Act Cap 295 of the Laws of Zambia has inadequacies for effective implementation of modern required environment of IDSR. The findings revealed that despite significant progress made in overcoming the challenges identified, gaps still exist. The mixed challenges with core and support functions were observed. The issues identified included non-financing of IDSR activities, inadequate training and high turnover of peripheral staff, nonexistent of feedback from higher levels, inadequate supervision, weak laboratory capacities to diagnose dysentery, lack of Job Aids for laboratory staff. Transport and communication means were unavailable in rural facilities. The best out comes in the core functions and systems attribute were reported to levels when support surveillance functions performed well. The human resource was found to be an output determinant to IDSR apart from the technological and technical issues. Conclusion: Implementation of IDSR was associated with improved surveillance and response efforts. The challenges identified were largely ?systemic? in nature. However, nonexistent budgetary support from the monthly grants allocation erodes gains. Reviewed efforts from government and stakeholders are necessary to sustain and expand progress. Strengthening support surveillance functions alongside the six building blocks of the health care system at implementation levels remains cardinal.


  1. CDC (2000). Assessment of infectious diseases in Uganda
  2. CDC, (2005). Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response: Objectives of Integrated Disease and Response(IDSR)
  3. CDC, MMWR, 2012). Introduction and Opportunities in Public Health Surveillance. A CDC Perspective. MMR, 2012
  4. Center for Disease C, (2007).? Integrated?? Disease Surveillance and Responses
  5. Center for Disease Control (2013).? Vision: Public Health Surveillance of the 21st century, MMWR, and VOL.61.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Assessment of infectious disease surveillance?Uganda, 2000. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
  7. Heymann, D.L (2006) . Control, elimination, eradication and the re-emergence of infectious diseases: Getting the message right. Retrieved from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
  8. http:// CDC.GOV/globalhealth/dpbswd/idsr.pdf)
  9. http://www.who.int/wer
  10. Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (2010). Technical Guidelines for IDSR in the African Region.2nd Edition
  11. John etal. 2011; Nsubuga. etal. (2010) .Journal of Public Health Management Practice(1996). Laboratory reporting and disease surveillance
  12. Kooma H(2018). Assessment of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response Implementation in Selected Health Facilities of Southern Province of Zambia
  13. Nworgu, B.G. (2006).A Compendium of research in educational?? Measurement and Evaluation. Enugu: Samireen Publishers
  14. Nworgu, B.G. (2006).A Compendium of research in educational?? Measurement and Evaluation. Enugu: Samireen Publishers
  15. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
  16. Polit(2016). The politics of surveillance and response to disease out-breaks
  17. Porta M (2008). Dictionary of epidemiology. 5th International??? Epidemiological? Association. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  18. Public Health Surveillance, (2012).Public Health Surveillance: Towards a Public Health SurveillanceStrategy for England . Public Health Surveillance:
  19. Public health surveillance(2012) Retrieved May16,2012 from world Health Organization
  20. Rathgeber E.M (2000). Global infectious disease and detection
  21. Revati K etal, (2013). Challenges with the Implementation of an Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) system: Systematic reviews of lessons learnt. Health policy and planning advanced access
  22. Revati K Phalkey, Shelby Yamamoto, Pradip Awate and Michael Marx (2013 ). Challenges with the implementation of an Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) system: systematic review of the lessons learned
  23. Thacker etal (1978). Public Health Surveillance in the United States: Evolution and Challenges
  24. Thacker S.B & Berkelman, R.L(1988).Public health surveillance in the United States of America
  25. Thacker S.B, Benkelman R.L, (1992). Training and service in public health practice. Epidemic Intelligence Service
  26. Thacker SB, Berkelman R.L (1988). Public health surveillance in the United States.
  27. Thacker, S.B, (1992). Methods: Study design epidemiology
  28. WHO (2006). Communicable disease surveillance and response systems: guide to monitoring and evaluating. World Health Organization, Geneva
  29. WHO (2006). Communicable disease surveillance and response systems: guide to monitoring and evaluating. World Health Organization, Geneva
  30. WHO (2008). Disease Control Priorities Project (DCP2 ( http://www.dcp2.org/file/153/dcpp-surveillance.pdf).
  31. WHO (2008). Disease Control Priorities Project (DCP2 ( http://www.dcp2.org/file/153/dcpp-surveillance.pdf).
  32. World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2010). Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the African Region, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo
  33. World Health Organization (2005) International Health Regulations (2005)
  34. World Health Organization (2008).& International Health Regulations (2005)
  35. Zambia National Health Strategic Plan (2011-2015)

[Emmanuel Hakwia Kooma. (2019); ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATED DISEASE SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED HEALTH FACILITIES OF SOUTHERN PROVINCE OF ZAMBIA. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 7 (Apr). 961-976] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com


emmanuel.kooma@gmail.com
Texila American University

DOI:


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/8914      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/8914