Public health surveillance systems are critical for early detection and response to disease outbreaks, yet robust methodological frameworks for evaluating their long-term efficacy in resource-limited settings are lacking. Uganda's surveillance infrastructure has undergone significant changes, necessitating a comprehensive, data-driven assessment. This study aims to methodologically evaluate the efficacy of the national public health surveillance system and to quantify its impact on population health risk reduction using longitudinal data. We constructed a balanced panel dataset from national surveillance and health outcome records. Efficacy was estimated using a two-way fixed effects model: Y₈ₓ = ₀ + ₁ S₈ₓ + ᵢ + ₜ + ₈ₓ, where Y₈ₓ is the log-transformed incidence of priority diseases in district i at time t, and S₈ₓ is a composite surveillance system efficacy score. Inference was based on cluster-robust standard errors. A one-standard-deviation increase in the surveillance efficacy score was associated with a 17. 3% reduction in reported incidence of priority diseases (95% CI: 12. 1% to 22. 2%). The timeliness of outbreak reporting showed the strongest correlation with overall system performance. The surveillance system has contributed significantly to reducing reported disease incidence, with timeliness being a key determinant of efficacy. The methodological framework provides a replicable model for longitudinal evaluation. Resource allocation should prioritise interventions that improve reporting timeliness and data completeness. The methodological approach should be integrated into routine national surveillance evaluations. public health surveillance, health systems evaluation, panel data, fixed effects models, Uganda, risk reduction This paper provides a novel methodological framework for the longitudinal, quantitative evaluation of surveillance system efficacy, demonstrating its application with a unique, long-run panel dataset from Uganda.
Nakato et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: