ArticleMalaria journal2025
Enhanced data quality to improve malaria surveillance in Papua, Indonesia.
Article in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPapua has a high burden of malaria, with an annual parasite incidence 300 times the national average. A key component of malaria elimination strategies is robust surveillance which is essential for monitoring trends in case numbers, guiding public health interventions, and prioritizing resource allocation. This study aimed to enhance malaria surveillance in Central Papua, Indonesia, by improving data collection, record-keeping, and treatment practices.
methodsThe study was conducted at five public clinics in Central Papua province, Indonesia, as part of a wider health systems strengthening programme to promote safer and more effective anti-malarial treatment (The SHEPPI Study). Clinical and laboratory details of patients with malaria and their treatment were documented in clinic registers which were digitalized into an electronic database. Automated reports were generated each month and used to provide regular feedback to clinic staff. Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) workshops were conducted with clinic staff using the Plan-Do-Study-Act approach to address challenges and drive sustained improvements.
resultsBetween January 2019 and December 2023, a total of 314,561 patients were tested for malaria, of whom 41.9% (131,948) had peripheral parasitaemia detected. The first round of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) workshops were held in May 2019 and improved data quality significantly, increasing data completeness from 46.3% (4540/9802) in the initial period (Jan-May 2019) to 71.5% (9053/12,665) after the first CQI (Jun-Oct 2019), p < 0.001. The second CQI round reduced DHP prescribing errors from 17.1% (1111/6489) in the initial period to 5.7% (607/10,669) after the second CQI (Sep 2019-Jan 2020) and PQ prescribing errors from 17.4% (552/3175) to 3.4% (160/4659) over the same time interval, p < 001. In total, 347 patients were prescribed fewer than the recommended number of PQ tablets during the initial period, 89 (25.6%) of whom were erroneously given only a single dose. Over the 4 year study period, a total of 11 workshops were conducted, driving continuous improvements in data quality and prescribing practices.
conclusionOne or two rounds of CQI, supported by regular follow-up, can enhance the quality of malariometric surveillance, however interventions needed to be tailored to address specific needs of participating clinics. Improvements in data quality and prescribing practices have potential to contribute to better malaria management, improved clinical outcomes, and strengthened trust in healthcare providers.
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.