Evaluation of the malaria reporting system supported by the District Health Information System 2 in Solomon Islands.

BACKGROUND: District Health Information Systems 2 (DHIS2) is used for supporting health information management in 67 countries, including Solomon Islands. However, there have been few published evaluations of the performance of DHIS2-enhanced disease reporting systems, in particular for monitoring infectious diseases such as malaria. The aim of this study was to evaluate DHIS2 supported malaria reporting in Solomon Islands and to develop recommendations for improving the system. METHODS: The evaluation was conducted in three administrative areas of Solomon Islands: Honoria City Council, and Malaita and Guadalcanal Provinces. Records of nine malaria indicators including report submission date, total malaria cases, Plasmodium falciparum case record, Plasmodium vivax case record, clinical malaria, malaria diagnosed with microscopy, malaria diagnosed with (rapid diagnostic test) (RDT), record of drug stocks and records of RDT stocks from 1st January to 31st December 2016 were extracted from the DHIS2 database. The indicators permitted assessment in four core areas: availability, completeness, timeliness and reliability. To explore perceptions and point of view of the stakeholders on the performance of the malaria case reporting system, focus group discussions were conducted with health centre nurses, whilst in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholder representatives from government (province and national) staff and World Health Organization officials who were users of DHIS2. RESULTS: Data were extracted from nine health centres in Honoria City Council and 64 health centres in Malaita Province. The completeness and timeliness from the two provinces of all nine indicators were 28.2% and 5.1%, respectively. The most reliable indicator in DHIS2 was 'clinical malaria' (i.e. numbers of clinically diagnosed malaria cases) with 62.4% reliability. Challenges to completeness were a lack of supervision, limited feedback, high workload, and a lack of training and refresher courses. Health centres located in geographically remote areas, a lack of regular transport, high workload and too many variables in the reporting forms led to delays in timely reporting. Reliability of reports was impacted by a lack of technical professionals such as statisticians and unavailability of tally sheets and reporting forms. CONCLUSION: The availability, completeness, timeliness and reliability of nine malaria indicators collected in DHIS2 were variable within the study area, but generally low. Continued onsite support, supervision, feedback and additional enhancements, such as electronic reporting will be required to further improve the malaria reporting system.

Targeting populations at higher risk for malaria: a survey of national malaria elimination programmes in the Asia Pacific.

BACKGROUND: Significant progress has been made in reducing the malaria burden in the Asia Pacific region, which is aggressively pursuing a 2030 regional elimination goal. Moving from malaria control to elimination requires National Malaria Control Programmes (NMCPs) to target interventions at populations at higher risk, who are often not reached by health services, highly mobile and difficult to test, treat, and track with routine measures, and if undiagnosed, can maintain parasite reservoirs and contribute to ongoing transmission. METHODS: A qualitative, free-text questionnaire was developed and disseminated among 17 of the 18 partner countries of the Asia Pacific Malaria Elimination Network (APMEN). RESULTS: All 14 countries that responded to the survey identified key populations at higher risk of malaria in their respective countries. Thirteen countries engage in the dissemination of malaria-related Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) materials. Eight countries engage in diagnostic screening, including of mobile and migrant workers, military staff, and/or overseas workers. Ten countries reported distributing or recommending the use of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) among populations at higher risk with fewer countries engaging in other prevention measures such as indoor residual spraying (IRS) (two countries), spatial repellents (four countries), chemoprophylaxis (five countries), and mass drug administration (MDA) (three countries). Though not specifically tailored to populations at higher risk, 11 countries reported using mass blood surveys as a surveillance tool and ten countries map case data. Most NMCPs lack a monitoring and evaluation structure. CONCLUSION: Countries in the Asia Pacific have identified populations at higher risk and targeted interventions to these groups but there is limited information on the effectiveness of these interventions. Platforms like APMEN offer the opportunity for the sharing of protocols and lessons learned related to finding, targeting and successfully clearing malaria from populations at higher risk. The sharing of programme data across borders may further strengthen national and regional efforts to eliminate malaria. This exchange of real-life experience is invaluable to NMCPs when scarce scientific evidence on the topic exists to aid decision-making and can further support NMCPs to develop strategies that will deliver a malaria-free Asia Pacific by 2030.