Comparative analysis of two alternative models for epidemiological surveillance in the Mexican Malaria Control Program

Betanzos-Reyes, Ángel Francisco; Rodrı́guez, Mario H.; Durán-Arenas, Luis; Hernández-Ávila, Juan Eugenio; Méndez-Gálvan, Jorge; Monroy, O J Velázquez; Coyner, Roberto Tapia

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.01.013

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of one surveillance system with another to estimate the relative sensitivity of each (the proportion of cases in the population under surveillance that are detected by the surveillance system) was also frequently done [e.g. 9, 32, 49, 61, 72, 78]. Several advanced statistical approaches were employed to evaluate surveillance systems.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disease surveillance programmes ought to be evaluated regularly to ensure they provide valuable information in an efficient manner. Evaluation of human and animal health surveillance programmes around the world is currently not standardized and therefore inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to review surveillance system attributes and the methods used for their assessment, together with the strengths and weaknesses of existing frameworks for evaluating surveillance in animal health, public health and allied disciplines. Information from 99 articles describing the evaluation of 101 surveillance systems was examined. A wide range of approaches for assessing 23 different system attributes was identified although most evaluations addressed only one or two attributes and comprehensive evaluations were uncommon. Surveillance objectives were often not stated in the articles reviewed and so the reasons for choosing certain attributes for assessment were not always apparent. This has the potential to introduce misleading results in surveillance evaluation. Due to the wide range of system attributes that may be assessed, methods should be explored which collapse these down into a small number of grouped characteristics by focusing on the relationships between attributes and their links to the objectives of the surveillance system and the evaluation. A generic and comprehensive evaluation framework could then be developed consisting of a limited number of common attributes together with several sets of secondary attributes which could be selected depending on the disease or range of diseases under surveillance and the purpose of the surveillance. Economic evaluation should be an integral part of the surveillance evaluation process. This would provide a significant benefit to decision-makers who often need to make choices based on limited or diminishing resources.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For surveillance to be effective as an intervention, research on useful and efficient modes of both detection and response must be undertaken [20]. At the most basic level, it is currently unclear when programs transitioning to very low transmission conditions should add active case and infection detection to their response strategies, and whether additional vector control interventions are needed [21]. The evolution of these actions and the optimal sequence and mix needs further evaluation as is also discussed in the malERA paper on modeling [22].…”

Section: Surveillance As An Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Research Agenda for Malaria Eradication: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Surveillance

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A hierarchical micro-costing approach was used to calculate direct costs incurred by the healthcare services (known as a program, actions, activities, tasks, inputs [PAATI] analysis) [ 26 , 27 ]. This type of analysis has previously been used for economic assessments of malaria [ 28 ] and hemodialysis in Mexico [ 26 ]. The method essentially involves identifying the tasks and inputs from an ideal protocol or current treatment practice for DF and then assigning a unit cost to each.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calculation of the Average Cost per Case of Dengue Fever in Mexico Using a Micro-Costing Approach

Zubieta-Zavala¹,

Salinas-Escudero²,

Ramírez-Chávez³

et al. 2016

PLoS Negl Trop Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe increasing burden of dengue fever (DF) in the Americas, and the current epidemic in previously unaffected countries, generate major costs for national healthcare systems. There is a need to quantify the average cost per DF case. In Mexico, few data are available on costs, despite DF being endemic in some areas. Extrapolations from studies in other countries may prove unreliable and are complicated by the two main Mexican healthcare systems (the Secretariat of Health [SS] and the Mexican Social Security Institute [IMSS]). The present study aimed to generate specific average DF cost-per-case data for Mexico using a micro-costing approach.MethodsExpected medical costs associated with an ideal management protocol for DF (denoted ´ideal costs´) were compared with the medical costs of current treatment practice (denoted ´real costs´) in 2012. Real cost data were derived from chart review of DF cases and interviews with patients and key personnel from 64 selected hospitals and ambulatory care units in 16 states for IMSS and SS. In both institutions, ideal and real costs were estimated using the program, actions, activities, tasks, inputs (PAATI) approach, a micro-costing technique developed by us.ResultsClinical pathways were obtained for 1,168 patients following review of 1,293 charts. Ideal and real costs for SS patients were US$165.72 and US$32.60, respectively, in the outpatient setting, and US$587.77 and US$490.93, respectively, in the hospital setting. For IMSS patients, ideal and real costs were US$337.50 and US$92.03, respectively, in the outpatient setting, and US$2,042.54 and US$1,644.69 in the hospital setting.ConclusionsThe markedly higher ideal versus real costs may indicate deficiencies in the actual care of patients with DF. It may be necessary to derive better estimates with micro-costing techniques and compare the ideal protocol with current practice when calculating these costs, as patients do not always receive optimal care.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of two alternative models for epidemiological surveillance in the Mexican Malaria Control Program

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review

Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review

A Research Agenda for Malaria Eradication: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Surveillance

Calculation of the Average Cost per Case of Dengue Fever in Mexico Using a Micro-Costing Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About