| dc.description |
A strong animal health surveillance system is an essential determinant of the health of
animal and human population. To ensure its functionality and performance, it needs to
be evaluated regularly. Therefore, a process evaluation was conducted in this study to
assess animal health surveillance processes, mechanisms and the contextual factors
which facilitate or hinder uptake, implementation and sustainability of the system in
Tanzania. A mixed-method study design was used to evaluate the national animal
health surveillance system guided by a framework for process evaluation of complex
interventions developed by Moore and others. The system was assessed against
standard guidelines and procedures using the following attributes: fidelity, adherence,
exposure, satisfaction, participation rate, recruitment and context. Quantitative and
qualitative data were collected using a cross-sectional survey, key informant interviews,
document review, site visits and non-participant observation. Data from questionnaires
were downloaded, cleaned and analyzed in Microsoft TM Excel. Qualitative data were
analyzed following deductive thematic and content analysis methods. Fidelity attribute
showed that case identification is mainly based on clinical signs due to limited laboratory
services for confirmation. Data collection was not well-coordinated and there were
multiple disparate reporting channels. Adherence in terms of the proportion of reports
submitted per month was only 61% of the target. District-level animal health officials
spent an average of 60% of their weekly time on surveillance-related activities, but only
12% of them were satisfied with the surveillance system. Their dissatisfaction was caused
by large area coverage with little to no facilitation, poor communication, and lack of a
supporting system. The cost of surveillance data was found to be 1.4 times higher than
the annual surveillance budget. The timeliness of the system ranged between 0 and 153
days from the observation date (median = 2 days, mean = 6 days). The study pointed
out some deviations in animal health surveillance processes from the standard guidelines and their implication on the system’s performance. The system could be improved by
developing a user-friendly unified reporting system, the active involvement of subnational
level animal health officials, optimization of data sources and an increase in the horizon
of the financing mechanism. |
|