Abstract:

Background: Independent human and animal disease surveillance creates challenges linking zoonotic diseases outbreaks in either populations, while integration improves simultaneous zoonotic disease reporting and response in both populations. This paper evaluates integration within human and animal surveillance systems and challenges of integrating the two, in West Nile, aiming to improve simultaneous zoonotic disease detection in humans and animals.

Methods: Cross-sectional data from in-depth interviews on integration of core and support surveillance function of human and animal surveillance systems, collected with an integration assessment tool was analysed on integration levels and gaps within and across the two systems.

Findings: Integration was high in human surveillance (0.92); in planning, reporting and outbreak response (1), data processes (0.86), laboratory processes (0.93) and coordination (0.87); but low in animal surveillance (0.56), especially data collection and analysis (0.20). Integration of human varied from animal surveillance systems (0.97 vs. 0.56), especially in data processes (variation of 0.70).

Conclusions: Differential integration of core and support surveillance functions between human and animal surveillance systems challenges zoonotic disease surveillance, in data collection, reporting frequency and lack electronic real-time disease notification for anmals diseases. Human IDSR guidelines provide platform to coordinate animal disease reporting and improving zoonotic diseases surveillance.

Investments focusing on Point-of-Care animal diseases diagnosis, real-time reporting and eIDSR-CBS, reduce delayed animal disease diagnosis. The integration assessment tool is available for adoption to effectively identified integration gaps.

Keywords: Integrated Disease surveillance systems, human and animal disease surveillance systems, zoonotic disease surveillance, West Nile Region Uganda.

References:

[1].   Fred Goldstein, Barbara Vidal, and Marie D. Kitzis: Integrated Human-Animal Disease Surveillance; Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 11, No. 9, September 2005.

[2].   Fred Goldstein, Barbara Vidal, and Marie D. Kitzis: Integrated Human-Animal Disease Surveillance; Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 11, No. 9, September 2005.

[3].   Joint External Evaluation of IHR Core Capacities of the republic of Uganda. Mission report: June 26-30, 2017.

[4].   https://www.ghsagenda.org/

[5].   Animal disease surveillance in resource poor settings: the case of Uganda. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272021364_Animal_disease_surveillance_in_resource_poor_settings_the_case_of_Uganda [accessed Oct 09 2018].

[6].   WHO technical review meeting of the joint external evaluation (JEE) tool and process: 19-21 April 2017, Geneva, Switzerland: Meeting report. http://www.who.int/ihr/publications/WHO-WHE-CPI-2017.53/en/

[7].   Tammy R. Beckham and Lindsey K. The Use of Information Technology in Animal Health Management, Disease Reporting, Surveillance, and Emergency Response: 83rd General Session world organisation for animal health. Paris 24-29the May 2015.

[8].   Integrated Human-Animal Disease Surveillance: letter to the Editor: Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid Vol. 11, No. 9, September 2005

[9].   Report of the baseline needs assessment of establishment of e-IDSR in West Nile region-Uganda: March 2018.

[10].  Peter Rabinowitz and Lisa Conti. Links Among Human Health, Animal Health, and Ecosystem Health;

[11].  Annu. Rev. Public Health 2013.34:189-204. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

[12].  Mary J. R. Gilchrist, Ph.D.; Surveillance and Management of Zoonotic Disease Outbreaks: Public health laboratory surveillance. https://www.nap.edu/read/10338/chapter/6

[13]. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/empres/tools_SET.html