Evaluation of the adverse events following immunizations surveillance system in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2016: a descriptive cross sectional study

Sithole, Zvanaka; Tsitsi, Juru; Chonzi, Prosper; Shambira, Gerald; Gombe, Notion Tafara; Tshimanga, Mufuta

doi:10.11604/pamj.2017.28.308.12730

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two-thirds of the facilities relied on public transport and forms were not submitted on time. These ndings are consistent with ndings by Sithole et al 2017, where the system's stability was compromised by the communication systems which led to delays in transmitting information [16].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Evaluation of the Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System: A Case of the Oral Cholera Vaccine Mass Campaign, Chimanimani and Chipinge Districts, Zimbabwe, 2019.

Gadzayi

Mukuzunga²,

Chadambuka

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Three cases of adverse events following immunization (AEFI), in Chimanimani and Chipinge districts, were notified during their oral cholera vaccine (OCV) mass campaigns post-Cyclone Idai. However, the coverage survey uncovered 93 AEFI cases. We determined the reasons for the AEFI surveillance system under-reporting and assessed performance of the systemMethods: We conducted a surveillance system evaluation using the updated CDC guidelines for surveillance system evaluation. Fifty-seven health workers and 50 community members were randomly selected from 39 health facilities. We reviewed completed AEFI reporting forms to check for data quality, simplicity, completeness, and timeliness of the system. We used questionnaires to determine HCWs and community’s knowledge on the operations of the surveillance system. We used a health facility checklist to assess the system’s stability. Data were analysed to generate means and frequencies. Three-point Likert scales were used to rate health worker knowledge on the AEFI system. Results: Reasons for under-reporting were community’s poor knowledge, perceiving adverse events as minor issues and fear of being blamed for causing adverse events by health workers. The community had poor knowledge with 27/50 (54%) answering at least one out of three questions correctly. The system had a low sensitivity of 3% and was unstable, 24/39 (62%) of the facilities relied on public transport.Conclusion: Community’s poor knowledge on AEFI, occurrence of mild adverse events and fear of being blamed led to under-reporting. The system was neither stable nor sensitive. Community sensitization on AEFI were thus improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Our study showed that the sensitivity of AEFISS in both districts was low. This was attributed to the passive nature of the system which relies on voluntary reporting [11,[16][17][18]. The low sensitivity might also be due to HCWs' lack of knowledge as well as inadequate community sensitization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System: A Case of the Oral Cholera Vaccine Mass Campaign, Chimanimani and Chipinge Districts, Zimbabwe, 2019.

Gadzayi

Mukuzunga²,

Chadambuka

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings revealed that perceived or real fears of being labelled as knowing too much can hinder nurses from doing the right thing in an environment where members are punished or not encouraged to stand up for their beliefs. Similar findings were reported in Zimbabwe, where nurses underreporting of immunization adverse effects were found to be due to fear of their superiors [29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Barriers to nurses using their health advocacy role in nursing practice: A Ghanaian perspective

Laari

Duma

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While nursing is complex, transforming and multi-faceted profession, its focus of providing a safe and caring environment that promotes client health and wellbeing has remained unchanged. To do this, nurses need to use their professional roles and skills to advocate for such an environment to provide quality nursing care. However, this can be difficult, as health advocacy is a contextually intricate and complex component of nursing practice.Speaking up to protect clients’ rights is a key ethical and moral mandate for nurses, with many remaining silent, even when presented with circumstances that require them to use their health advocacy role during their practice. The barriers to Ghanaian nurses using their role as health advocates for clients in the healthcare and communities’ settings are not well understood. Identifying and describing these barriers is important to inform contextually relevant strategies to empower nurses to use their health advocacy role in their daily nursing practice. Methods: An inductive descriptive qualitative design, based on Strauss and Corbin Grounded Theory, was used to collect and analyse data on barriers that prevent nurses from practising their health advocacy role in Ghana. Twenty-four professional nurses were recruited from three regional hospitals in Ghana and interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed using Strauss and Corbin’s general guidelines and framework. Results: Three categories emerged as barriers to the health advocacy role practice by nurses, these being intra-personal, inter-personal and structural barriers.Conclusion: The barriers to nurses using their health advocacy role in practice are many and complex and have implications for nursing practice. Incorporating health advocacy into their curriculum may help address the barriers to nurses’ practice of health advocacy.

show abstract

“…To give HCPs the confidence to report AEFIs, fears of being blamed and victimized for causing the AEFI must be allayed through sensitization workshops. According to a Zimbabwean study, key among the reasons for negative perception and low reporting of AEFI is the fear of being blamed and victimized after reporting the AEFI [45]. Results from the current study showed that about three-quarters of study participants believed that reporting an AEFI can lead to such personal consequences; such thoughts and beliefs must therefore be discarded in order to improve AEFI reporting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Knowledge and Perceptions of Adverse Events Following Immunization among Healthcare Professionals in Africa: A Case Study from Ghana

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse events following immunization (AEFI) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is vital in monitoring post-licensure vaccine safety. The main objective of this study was to assess the knowledge and perceptions of AEFIs among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Africa, using the situation in Ghana as a case study. The study was of a cross-sectional quantitative design, and was carried out from 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017 with doctors, pharmacists, and nurses as the study participants. A 28-item paper-based questionnaire, delivered by hand to study participants, was the data collection tool in the study. The study was conducted in 4 hospitals after ethical approval was granted. The desired sample size was 686; however, 453 consented to partake in the study. Data were analyzed using SPSS (software version 22, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and chi-square and binary logistic regression tests were used for tests of association between HCPs’ characteristics and their knowledge and perceptions. Detailed knowledge of AEFIs was ascertained with a set of 9 questions, with 8 or 9 correctly answered questions signifying high knowledge, 5 to 7 correctly answered questions signifying moderate knowledge, and below 5 correctly answered questions signifying low knowledge. A set of 10 questions also ascertained HCPs’ positive and negative perceptions of AEFI. Results revealed that knowledge of AEFIs was high in 49 (10.8%) participants, moderate in 213 (47.0%) participants, and low in 191 (42.2%) participants. There was no statistically significant correlation between AEFI knowledge and professions. The highest negative perception was the lack of desire to learn more about how to diagnose, report, investigate, and manage AEFI, whereas the lowest was the lack of belief that surveillance improves public trust in immunization programs. There was a general awareness of AEFIs among HCPs in this study. However, negative perceptions and the lack of highly knowledgeable HCPs regarding AEFIs were possible setbacks to AEFI diagnosis, management, prevention, and reporting. More training and sensitization of HCPs on AEFIs and vaccine safety will be beneficial in improving the situation. Future research should focus on assessing the training materials and methodology used in informing HCPs about AEFIs and vaccine safety.

show abstract

Evaluation of the adverse events following immunizations surveillance system in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2016: a descriptive cross sectional study

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

An Evaluation of the Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System: A Case of the Oral Cholera Vaccine Mass Campaign, Chimanimani and Chipinge Districts, Zimbabwe, 2019.

An Evaluation of the Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System: A Case of the Oral Cholera Vaccine Mass Campaign, Chimanimani and Chipinge Districts, Zimbabwe, 2019.

Barriers to nurses using their health advocacy role in nursing practice: A Ghanaian perspective

Knowledge and Perceptions of Adverse Events Following Immunization among Healthcare Professionals in Africa: A Case Study from Ghana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About