PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Indian Journal of Public Health2 citationsOpen Access

Evaluation of Malaria Surveillance System in Government Health Facilities in Six Districts of State Chhattisgarh, India, 2023

View Full Paper
DGDharmendra GahwaiMKMogan KaviprawinDPDeepak Kumar Panigrahi

Key Points

  • The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of the malaria surveillance system in Chhattisgarh's six districts.
  • Conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using CDC guidelines.
  • Included 1276 syndromic, 110 presumptive, and 100 laboratory reporting units via random sampling.
  • Interviewed surveillance officers, epidemiologists, and data managers.
  • Abstracted reporting forms and analyzed timeliness, sensitivity, data quality, and usefulness.
  • Surveillance captured 5.8% of cases from presumptive forms and 29% from laboratory forms.
  • All reported cases had complete entries in key variables.
  • 52.4% of presumptive forms and 72% of laboratory forms had valid entries.

Abstract

Abstract Background: Chhattisgarh state accounts for 18% of the malaria burden and 40% of malaria deaths in India. Malaria surveillance is implemented through the Integrated Disease Surveillance System (IDSP). Objectives: We evaluated the malaria surveillance system in six districts of Chhattisgarh, India, in 2023. Materials and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using the Centers for Disease Control guidelines for evaluation. We included 1276 syndromic (S), 110 Presumptive (P), and 100 Laboratory (L) form reporting units through simple random sampling. We interviewed the surveillance officer, epidemiologist, and data manager at the state and district levels. We abstracted the P and L forms from the sampled facilities. We analyzed timeliness (forms reporting within 24 h of identification), sensitivity (reported to surveillance after identification), data quality (complete and valid entry in key variables), and usefulness attributes. Results: Among 1442 P-forms, the surveillance system reporting is sensitive to capture 84 (5.8%) of cases. Similarly, among 11,510 L-forms, the system captured 3334 (29%) cases. All the reported cases in surveillance had complete entries in key variables. Among cases reported in the system, 44/84 (52.4%) of P-forms and 2461/3418 (72%) of L-forms had valid entries in key variables. Malaria surveillance is useful at the district and state levels to monitor the disease trend, detect clusters, and act early to prevent outbreaks. Conclusion: Malaria surveillance has inadequate reporting on sensitivity and data quality. Identifying the factors for low sensitivity and implementing quality improvement initiatives for better reporting of the malaria surveillance system.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gahwai et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6984345ff1d9ada3c1fb25e1https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_647_25
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper