↓ Skip to main content

African Swine Fever in Uganda: Qualitative Evaluation of Three Surveillance Methods with Implications for Other Resource-Poor Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
African Swine Fever in Uganda: Qualitative Evaluation of Three Surveillance Methods with Implications for Other Resource-Poor Settings
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2015.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Chenais, Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin, Sofia Boqvist, Ulf Emanuelson, Tonny Aliro, Emma Tejler, Giampaolo Cocca, Charles Masembe, Karl Ståhl

Abstract

Animal diseases impact negatively on households and on national economies. In low-income countries, this pertains especially to socio-economic effects on household level. To control animal diseases and mitigate their impact, it is necessary to understand the epidemiology of the disease in its local context. Such understanding, gained through disease surveillance, is often lacking in resource-poor settings. Alternative surveillance methods have been developed to overcome some of the hurdles obstructing surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate and qualitatively compare three methods for surveillance of acute infectious diseases using African swine fever in northern Uganda as an example. Report-driven outbreak investigations, participatory rural appraisals (PRAs), and a household survey using a smartphone application were evaluated. All three methods had good disease-detecting capacity, and each of them detected many more outbreaks compared to those reported to the World Organization for Animal Health during the same time period. Apparent mortality rates were similar for the three methods although highest for the report-driven outbreak investigations, followed by the PRAs, and then the household survey. The three methods have different characteristics and the method of choice will depend on the surveillance objective. The optimal situation might be achieved by a combination of the methods: outbreak detection via smartphone-based real-time surveillance, outbreak investigation for collection of biological samples, and a PRA for a better understanding of the epidemiology of the specific outbreak. All three methods require initial investments and continuous efforts. The sustainability of the surveillance system should, therefore, be carefully evaluated before making such investments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 20 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,350,158
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,841
of 6,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,614
of 284,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.