Table 6 Implementation of specific activities at MBDS XB sites
From: Local cross-border disease surveillance and control: experiences from the Mekong Basin
Description (Item) | Percentage reporting “Yes” | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALL | Pairs | Singles | Cambodia | Thailand | Vietnam | |
Number of sites | 15 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2* |
Cross-border (XB) Cooperation | ||||||
Maintain list of contact info for XB counterparts | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Have a basic package of activities for your site | 86% | 86% | 86% | 83% | 75% | 100% |
Shared surveillance information as required | 93% | 100% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Participated in at least one meeting with another XB site in the past 6Â months | 57% | 43% | 71% | 83% | 50% | 50% |
Participated in at least one supervisory visit in the last 6Â months | 57% | 57% | 57% | 67% | 25% | 100% |
Ever participated in joint outbreak investigation | 79% | 71% | 86% | 67% | 75% | 100% |
Participated in at least one outbreak investigation, TTX or drill past 12Â months | 57% | 43% | 71% | 50% | 50% | 100% |
Average number (of 7 possible) | 5.3 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 4.8 | 6.5 |
Animal-human interface and community-based surveillance | ||||||
Maintain list of priority zoonotic diseases | 86% | 86% | 86% | 83% | 100% | 50% |
Maintain a list of contact information for local animal & human health counterparts | 79% | 86% | 71% | 83% | 75% | 50% |
Participated in outbreak investigation, TTX or drill that at addressed the interface between animal and human health in the past 12Â months | 57% | 43% | 71% | 50% | 50% | 100% |
Regularly share surveillance reports between animal and human health sectors | 64% | 57% | 71% | 67% | 25% | 100% |
Have list of suspected diseases or events to report via community-based surveillance | 71% | 57% | 86% | 67% | 50% | 100% |
Have tested (pilot) or implemented community-based surveillance past 6Â months | 36% | 14% | 57% | 50% | 0% | 100% |
Community-based surveillance fully operational at site | 57% | 29% | 86% | 83% | 25% | 50% |
Average number (of 7 possible) | 4.5 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 3.3 | 5.5 |
Human resource/epidemiology capacity | ||||||
At least 1 person at site has participated in short- or long-term epidemiology course | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
ICT capacity | ||||||
XB site has ICT hardware/software installed, including updates. | 93% | 100% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 33% |
XB site has received ICT training, including updates as needed. | 79% | 86% | 71% | 100% | 100% | 33% |
XB site has access to ICT support when needed. | 93% | 100% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 33% |
XB site routinely uses ICT for surveillance. | 93% | 100% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 33% |
Average number (of 4 possible) | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 |
Laboratory capacity | ||||||
Site has laboratory for detecting/diagnosing at least 1 priority disease | 71% | 86% | 57% | 83% | 75% | 0% |
Site has timely access to lab testing for all priority diseases | 36% | 57% | 14% | 33% | 75% | 0% |
Laboratory at or serving your site participated in proficiency testing past 12Â months | 50% | 43% | 57% | 67% | 50% | 0% |
Average number (of 3 possible) | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
Risk communications (RC) | ||||||
At least 1 person at your site has received risk communications training | 64% | 71% | 57% | 83% | 50% | 0% |
Your site has used (in a real situation) or tested (via exercise) RC past 12Â months | 43% | 43% | 43% | 67% | 50% | 0% |
Average number (of 2 possible) | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
Overall average number (of 24 possible) | 17.0 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 18.7 | 16.0 | 15.0 |