I am familiar with evaluation frameworks. I have attached a reading that might help you further.

Dear Rumbidzai,

Thank you so much for the valuable reference material.

It was very useful guidline.

Best

Vicky

Evaluating a diseases early warning system is a tedious but straightforward process. The secret to success is to break down the system into its various components, and assess each one individually.

1.  The first step is determining the diseases to be covered, with consideration of the anticipated warning methodology, the desired response by healthcare providers and the community, and a qualitative (if not quantitative) description of the anticipated community benefits (prevention of additional new cases, early treatment to minimize complications or other.

2.  The sensitivity and specificity of the system in terms of picking up a case or cases of the disease(s) in question and the frequency of false positive responses.

3.  The methodology or designation of a person to make the decision that the circumstances surrounding the case or cases in question warrants issuance of warnings to healthcare providers and/or the general public.

4.  The (process) response by the community and healthcare providers. Here the critical issue is whether or not the warning generates large numbers of false-positive responses or medical work-ups that prove to be negative.

5. The direct outcome response in terms of the occurrence of additional cases or medical complications compared to what might have expected.

6.  Assessment of the indirect outcome in terms of the opinions of the community, healthcare providers and elected officials as to whether the warning, as issued, was warranted, and whether the warning helped protect the health of the community. (this may require surveys of these three sets of stakeholders).

Joel L. Nitzkin, MD

[email protected]

Dear Joel,

Thank you so much for your valuable guidance on evaluation of the surveillance system.

Best

Vicky