Evaluation of a mobile health approach to improve the Early Warning System of influenza surveillance in Cameroon

Abstract

Background Rapid reporting of surveillance data is essential to better inform national prevention and control strategies. Objectives We compare the newly implemented smartphone‐based system to the former paper‐based and short message service (SMS) for collecting influenza epidemiological data in Cameroon. Methods Of the 13 sites which collect data from persons with influenza‐like illness (ILI), six sites send data through the EWS, while seven sites make use of the paper‐based system and SMS. We used four criteria for the comparison of the data collection tools: completeness, timeliness, conformity and cost. Results Regarding the different collection tools, data sent by the EWS were significantly more complete (97.6% vs 81.6% vs 44.8%), prompt (74.4% vs n/a vs 60.7%) and of better quality (93.7% vs 76.1% vs 84.0%) than data sent by the paper‐based system and SMS, respectively. The average cost of sending a datum by a sentinel site per week was higher for the forms (5.0 USD) than for the EWS (0.9 USD) and SMS (0.1 USD). The number of outpatient visits and subsequently all surveillance data decreased across the years 2017‐2019 together with the influenza positivity rate from 30.7% to 28.3%. Contrarily, the proportion of influenza‐associated ILI to outpatient load was highest in the year 2019 (0.37 per 100 persons vs 0.28 and 0.26 in the other 2 years). Conclusion All sentinel sites and even other disease surveillance systems are expected to use this tool in the near term future due to its satisfactory performance and cost.

Mapping Digital Public Health Interventions Among Existing Digital Technologies and Internet-Based Interventions to Maintain and Improve Population Health in Practice: Scoping Review

“…For prevention, of the 179 interventions, 13 (7%) exclusively targeted primary prevention (ie, through vaccination registries, behavior change programs, or health education in healthy individuals) [ 55 , 62 , 96 , 98 , 101 , 106 , 126 , 140 , 143 , 188 , 208 , 223 , 226 ]. Of the 179 interventions, 8 (4%) focused only on secondary prevention, as digital screening and surveillance programs [ 48 , 61 , 153 , 161 , 171 , 194 , 201 , 219 ], and 3 (2%) improved the health of patients who were chronically ill on a tertiary prevention level [ 103 , 147 , 202 ]. In contrast, of all included 179 interventions, 10 (6%) were established for primary health care purposes only [ 49 , 67 , 79 , 109 , 124 , 172 , 178 , 186 , 210 , 212 , 228 , 229 ], 17 (9%) were designed for secondary health care through specialists or emergency use cases [ 52 , 54 , 60 , 65 , 78 , 83 , 88 , 95 , 134 , 135 , 173 - 175 , 179 , 189 , 193 , 216 ], and 5 (3%) aimed at tertiary health care in hospital settings [ 70 , 109 , 132 , 157 , 200 ].…”