Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Phalkey, Revati K.; Kroll, Mareike; Dutta, Sayani; Shukla, Sharvari; Butsch, Carsten; Bharucha, Erach; Kraas, Frauke (2015)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Global Health Action
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: knowledge-attitude-practice; private practitioners; disease surveillance; barriers and facilitators, Original Article, barriers and facilitators, RA1-1270, Public aspects of medicine, private practitioners, disease surveillance, Public Health and Health Systems, knowledge-attitude-practice
Background: Participation of private practitioners in routine disease surveillance in India is minimal despite the fact that they account for over 70% of the primary healthcare provision. We aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of private practitioners in the city of Pune toward disease surveillance. Our goal was to identify what barriers and facilitators determine their participation in current and future surveillance efforts.Design: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 258 practitioners (response rate 86%). Data were processed using SPSS™ Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, version 17.0.1.Results: Knowledge regarding surveillance, although limited, was better among allopathy practitioners. Surveillance practices did not differ significantly between allopathy and alternate medicine practitioners. Multivariable logistic regression suggested practicing allopathy [odds ratio (OR) 3.125, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.234–7.915, p=0.016] and availability of a computer (OR 3.670, 95% CI 1.237–10.889, p=0.019) as significant determinants and the presence of a laboratory (OR 3.792, 95% CI 0.998–14.557, p=0.052) as a marginal determinant of the practitioner’s willingness to participate in routine disease surveillance systems. Lack of time (137, 55%) was identified as the main barrier at the individual level alongside inadequately trained subordinate staff (14, 6%). Main extrinsic barriers included lack of cooperation between government and the private sector (27, 11%) and legal issues involved in reporting data (15, 6%). There was a general agreement among respondents (239, 94%) that current surveillance efforts need strengthening. Over a third suggested that availability of detailed information and training about surveillance processes (70, 33%) would facilitate reporting.Conclusions: The high response rate and the practitioners’ willingness to participate in a proposed pilot non-communicable disease surveillance system indicate that there is a general interest from the private sector in cooperating. Keeping reporting systems simple, preferably in electronic formats that minimize infrastructure and time requirements on behalf of the private practitioners, will go a long way in consolidating disease surveillance efforts in the state. Organizing training sessions, providing timely feedback, and awarding continuing medical education points for routine data reporting seem feasible options and should be piloted.Keywords: knowledge-attitude-practice; private practitioners; disease surveillance; barriers and facilitators(Published: 1 October 2015)Citation: Glob Health Action 2015, 8: 28413 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.28413Supplementary files: To access the supplementary material for this article, please see Supplementary files under ‘Article Tools’
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Buehler JW, Hopkins RS, Overhage JM, Sosin DM, Tong V. Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group. MMWR Recomm Rep 2004; 53: 1 11.
    • 2. M'ikanatha NM, Lynfield R, Julian KG, Van Beneden CA, de Valk H. Infectious disease surveillance: a cornerstone for prevention and control. Infectious Disease Surveillance. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2013, pp. 1 20.
    • 3. Nsubuga P, Eseko N, Tadesse W, Ndayimirije N, Stella C, McNabb S. Structure and performance of infectious disease surveillance and response, United Republic of Tanzania, 1998. Bull World Health Organ 2002; 80: 196 203.
    • 4. Calain P. From the field side of the binoculars: a different view on global public health surveillance. Health Policy Plann 2010; 22: 13 20.
    • 5. John TJ, Dandona L, Sharma VP, Kakkar M. Continuing challenge of infectious diseases in India. Lancet 2011; 377: 252 69.
    • 6. Reddy KS, Shah B, Varghese C, Ramadoss A. Chronic diseases 3 responding to the threat of chronic diseases in India. Lancet 2005; 366: 1744 9.
    • 7. Government of India (2011). Annual report to the people on health (December 2011). New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Available from: http:// mohfw.nic.in/WriteReadData/l892s/6960144509Annual Report to the People on Health.pdf [cited 12 June 2015].
    • 8. Alwan A, Armstrong T, Bettcher D, Branca F, Chisholm D, Ezzati M, et al. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_ report_full_en.pdf [cited 10 June 2015].
    • 9. Phalkey RK, Shukla S, Shardul S, Ashtekar N, Valsa S, Awate P, et al. Assessment of the core and support functions of the Integrated Disease Surveillance system in Maharashtra, India. BMC Public Health 2013; 13: 575.
    • 10. Basu S, Andrews J, Kishore S, Panjabi R, Stuckler D. Comparative performance of private and public healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001244.
    • 11. Duggal R. Urban healthcare: issues and challenges. In: Nadkarni V, Sinha R, D'Mello L, eds. NGOs, health and urban poor. Jaipur: Rawat; 2009. Available from: http://www.researchgate. net/profile/Ravi_Duggal/publication/235964376_Urban_Health care_Issues_and_Challenges/links/546f26700cf216f8cfa8e8cf.pdf [cited 12 June 2015].
    • 12. Agarwal S, Sehgal S, Lal S. Public private mix in the revised national TB control programme. New Delhi: Director General of Health Service, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; 2005. Available from: http://www.tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/Tuberculosis Control in India15.pdf
    • 13. Barua N, Pandav CS. The allure of the private practitioner: is this the only alternative for the urban poor in India? Indian J Public Health 2011; 55: 107 14.
    • 14. Government of India (2004). Integrated disease surveillance project: project implementation plan. New Delhi: Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Available from: http://www.whoindia.org/LinkFiles/IDSP_PIPs.pdf [cited 1 June 2012].
    • 15. World Bank (2010). Restructuring paper on the proposed restructuring of the Integrated Disease Surveillance Project, India (Report Number 53537). International Development Association and The World Bank. Available from: http:// www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2010/03/23/000020439_20100323075308/Rendered/ PDF/535370PJPR0P07101Official0Use0Only1.pdf [cited 31 August 2015].
    • 16. Phalkey R. Problems and prospects for Intergrated Disease Surveillance in India: a case study of Maharashtra state. Heidelberg: Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg; 2012. Available from: http://archiv.ub. uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/16099/1/Phalkey Revati.pdf [cited 31 August 2015].
    • 17. State Government of Maharashtra (2009). Health status: Maharashtra 2009. Pune: State Health Systems Resource Center, Public Health Department, pp. 1 67.
    • 18. Government of India (2013). The national urban health mission. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Available from: http://nrhm.gov.in/images/ pdf/NUHM/Implementation_Framework_NUHM.pdf [cited August 31, 2015].
    • 19. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320: 114 16.
    • 20. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 2006; 27: 237 46.
    • 21. Somda ZC, Meltzer MI, Perry HN, Messonnier NE, Abdulmumini U, Mebrahtu G, et al. Cost analysis of an integrated disease surveillance and response system: case of Burkina Faso, Eritrea, and Mali. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009; 7: 1.
    • 22. Sow I, Alemu W, Nanyunja M, Duale S, Perry HN, Gaturuku P. Trained district health personnel and the performance of integrated disease surveillance in the WHO African region. East Afr J Public Health 2010; 7: 16 19.
    • 23. MOH Nigeria (2010). IDSR in West Africa- bridging the gaps. In: The Nigerian Academy of Science, ed. Lagos: West African Book Publishers Limited. pp. 1 36.
    • 24. Ahmadi A, Nedjat S, Gholami J, Majdzadeh R. Disease surveillance and private sector in the metropolitans: a troublesome collaboration. Int J Prev Med 2013; 4: 1036 44.
    • 25. Tan HF, Chang CK, Tseng HF, Lin W. Evaluation of the national notifiable disease surveillance system in Taiwan: an example of varicella reporting. Vaccine 2007; 25: 2630 3.
    • 26. Mboera LE, Rumisha SF, Mwanemile EJ, Mziwanda E, Mmbuji PK. Enhancing disease surveillance reporting using public transport in Dodoma District, Central Tanzania. Tanzan Health Res Bull 2005; 7: 201 5.
    • 27. Klompas M, Lazarus R, Daniel J, Haney G, Campion F, Kruskal B, et al. Electronic medical record support for public health (ESP): automated detection and reporting of statutory notifiable diseases to public health authorities. Adv Dis Surveill 2007; 3: 3.
    • 28. Lazarus R, Klompas M, Campion FX, McNabb SJ, Hou X, Daniel J, et al. Electronic Support for Public Health: validated case finding and reporting for notifiable diseases using electronic medical data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: 18 24.
    • 29. Phadke A. Response to an epidemic of novel H1N1 flu in Pune: need for introspection. Indian J Med Ethics 2009; 6: 176 8.
    • 30. Tan HF, Yeh CY, Chang HW, Chang CK, Tseng HF. Private doctors' practices, knowledge, and attitude to reporting of communicable diseases: a national survey in Taiwan. BMC Infect Dis 2009; 9: 11.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.