COVID-19 data reporting systems in Africa reveal insights for future pandemics

  1. Seth D. Judson
  2. Judith Torimiro
  3. David M. Pigott
  4. Apollo Maima
  5. Ahmed Mostafa
  6. Ahmed Samy
  7. Peter Rabinowitz
  8. Kevin Njabo

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Globally, countries have used diverse methods to report data during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using international guidelines and principles of emergency management, we compare national data reporting systems in African countries in order to determine lessons for future pandemics. We analyse COVID-19 reporting practices across 54 African countries through 2020. Reporting systems were diverse and included summaries, press releases, situation reports and online dashboards. These systems were communicated via social media accounts and websites belonging to ministries of health and public health. Data variables from the reports included event detection (cases/deaths/recoveries), risk assessment (demographics/co-morbidities) and response (total tests/hospitalisations). Of countries with reporting systems, 36/53 (67.9%) had recurrent situation reports and/or online dashboards which provided more extensive data. All of these systems reported cases, deaths and recoveries. However, few systems contained risk assessment and response data, with only 5/36 (13.9%) reporting patient co-morbidities and 9/36 (25%) including total hospitalisations. Further evaluation of reporting practices in Cameroon, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal and South Africa as examples from different sub-regions revealed differences in reporting healthcare capacity and preparedness data. Improving the standardisation and accessibility of national data reporting systems could augment research and decision-making, as well as increase public awareness and transparency for national governments.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1017/s0950268822001054
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.01.21264385: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.01.21264385 on medRxiv