Electronic data collection, management and analysis tools used for outbreak response in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and stakeholder survey.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic data collection, management and analysis tools to support outbreak response is limited, especially in low income countries. This can hamper timely decision-making during outbreak response. Identifying available tools and assessing their functions in the context of outbreak response would support appropriate selection and use, and likely more timely data-driven decision-making during outbreaks. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and a stakeholder survey of the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and other partners to identify and describe the use of, and technical characteristics of, electronic data tools used for outbreak response in low- and middle-income countries. Databases included were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science and CINAHL with publications related to tools for outbreak response included from January 2010-May 2020. Software tool websites of identified tools were also reviewed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and counts, and proportions of data obtained from the review or stakeholder survey were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 75 electronic tools including for data collection (33/75), management (13/75) and analysis (49/75) based on data from the review and survey. Twenty-eight tools integrated all three functionalities upon collection of additional information from the tool developer websites. The majority were open source, capable of offline data collection and data visualisation. EpiInfo, KoBoCollect and Open Data Kit had the broadest use, including for health promotion, infection prevention and control, and surveillance data capture. Survey participants highlighted harmonisation of data tools as a key challenge in outbreaks and the need for preparedness through training front-line responders on data tools. In partnership with the Global Health Network, we created an online interactive decision-making tool using data derived from the survey and review. CONCLUSIONS: Many electronic tools are available for data -collection, -management and -analysis in outbreak response, but appropriate tool selection depends on knowledge of tools' functionalities and capabilities. The online decision-making tool created to assist selection of the most appropriate tool(s) for outbreak response helps by matching requirements with functionality. Applying the tool together with harmonisation of data formats, and training of front-line responders outside of epidemic periods can support more timely data-driven decision making in outbreaks.

The practice of evaluating epidemic response in humanitarian and low-income settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Epidemics of infectious disease occur frequently in low-income and humanitarian settings and pose a serious threat to populations. However, relatively little is known about responses to these epidemics. Robust evaluations can generate evidence on response efforts and inform future improvements. This systematic review aimed to (i) identify epidemics reported in low-income and crisis settings, (ii) determine the frequency with which evaluations of responses to these epidemics were conducted, (iii) describe the main typologies of evaluations undertaken and (iv) identify key gaps and strengths of recent evaluation practice. METHODS: Reported epidemics were extracted from the following sources: World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News (WHO DON), UNICEF Cholera platform, Reliefweb, PROMED and Global Incidence Map. A systematic review for evaluation reports was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science, WPRIM, Reliefweb, PDQ Evidence and CINAHL Plus databases, complemented by grey literature searches using Google and Google Scholar. Evaluation records were quality-scored and linked to epidemics based on time and place. The time period for the review was 2010-2019. RESULTS: A total of 429 epidemics were identified, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. A total of 15,424 potential evaluations records were screened, 699 assessed for eligibility and 132 included for narrative synthesis. Only one tenth of epidemics had a corresponding response evaluation. Overall, there was wide variability in the quality, content as well as in the disease coverage of evaluation reports. CONCLUSION: The current state of evaluations of responses to these epidemics reveals large gaps in coverage and quality and bears important implications for health equity and accountability to affected populations. The limited availability of epidemic response evaluations prevents improvements to future public health response. The diversity of emphasis and methods of available evaluations limits comparison across responses and time. In order to improve future response and save lives, there is a pressing need to develop a standardized and practical approach as well as governance arrangements to ensure the systematic conduct of epidemic response evaluations in low-income and crisis settings.