ArticleWellcome open research2024
Insights into COVID-19 data collection and management in Malawi: exploring processes, perceptions, and data discrepancies.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Monitoring COVID-19 occurrence in a resource-limited setting - COVID-19 sentinel surveillance in Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Insights into COVID-19 data collection and management in Malawi: exploring processes, perceptions, and data discrepancies.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The completion of case-based surveillance forms was vital for case identification during COVID-19 surveillance in Malawi. Despite significant efforts, the resulting national data suffered from gaps and inconsistencies which affected its optimal usability. The objectives of this study were to investigate the processes of collecting and reporting COVID-19 data, to explore health workers' perceptions and understanding of the collection tools and processes, and to identify factors contributing to data quality. Methods: A total of 75 healthcare professionals directly involved in COVID-19 data collection from the Malawi Ministry of Health in Lilongwe and Blantyre participated in Focus Group Discussions and In-Depth Interviews. We collected participants' views on the effectiveness of surveillance forms in collecting the intended data, as well as on the data collection processes and training needs. We used MAXQDA for thematic and document analysis. Results: Form design significantly influenced data quality and, together with challenges in applying case definitions, formed 44% of all issues raised. Concerns regarding processes used in data collection and training gaps comprised 49% of all the issues raised. Language issues (2%) and privacy, ethical, and cultural considerations (4%), although mentioned less frequently, offered compelling evidence for further review. Conclusions: Our study highlights the integral connection between data quality and the design and utilization of data collection forms. While the forms were deemed to contain the most relevant fields, deficiencies in format, order of fields, and the absence of an addendum with guidelines, resulted in large gaps and errors. Form design needs to be reviewed so that it appropriately fits into the overall processes and systems that capture surveillance data. This study is the first of its kind in Malawi, offering an in-depth view of the perceptions and experiences of health professionals involved in disease surveillance on the tools and processes they use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.