Evaluation of the collaborative integrated surveillance system (ViCo) in Guatemala: a qualitative study on lessons learned and future perspectives

Abstract

Abstract Background The collaborative integrated surveillance system known as Vigilancia Integrada Comunitaria (ViCo) was implemented in 2007 to better understand and characterize the burden of diarrheal, respiratory and febrile illnesses in Guatemala. Methods To evaluate the usefulness of ViCo and inform a redesign of the system and new surveillance activities in the Central American region, personnel from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted thirty-nine in-depth interviews from June—December 2018 with key stakeholders responsible for the design and implementation of ViCo in Guatemala. A semi-structured questionnaire adapted from the Updated CDC Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems was used for data collection. We used a grounded theory approach to explore stakeholder perceptions of ViCo and generate recommendations for improvement. Primary qualitative findings were organized based on thematic areas using ATLAS.ti version 8 software. Results Emergent themes relevant to the usefulness of ViCo were organized across strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations pertaining to the: (1) Size and Complexity of ViCo, (2) Stakeholder Expectations About the Objectives of ViCo, (3) Data Management and Structure of the Information System, (4) Local Control of Data, (5) Integration of ViCo within the Ministry of Health, and, (6) Improvement of the Operational and Design Aspects of ViCo across System, Process, and Output levels. Conclusions Stakeholders perceived ViCo to be useful. They recommended measures to improve system performance and quality, including simplifying the surveillance system, routine data analysis and feedback, and channeling efforts towards integrating surveillance data into the national health information system. To create a well-performing surveillance system and achieve the intended objective of surveillance for public health action, ongoing evaluation and assessment of surveillance activities are necessary.