Evaluation of the performance of epidemic-prone disease management systems in Guinea

Résumé fourni par la source

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of response systems for epidemic-prone diseases (EPDs) in Guinea and identify their strengths and weaknesses to guide future improvements. Study Design A cross-sectional evaluation of epidemic-prone disease (EPD) management systems was performed through a sample of actors involved in the response. Method ology: This descriptive cross-sectional evaluative study involved 356 response actors from Guinea's eight administrative regions. Data were collected via structured questionnaires organized around three main components: structure, process, and results. Subcomponent scores were analyzed, and the main components were classified into three levels of appreciation: good, average, or poor. An analysis of strengths and weaknesses was also conducted. Results Among the 356 actors interviewed, 76.40% were female, and the majority (51%) were aged between 40 and 60 years. A total of 89.9% had a university-level education. The structure component achieved an overall score of 61%, reflecting average appreciation. The subcomponents included human resources (69%), logistics and health products (81%), and health financing (32%). The process component scored 60%, with strong leadership and coordination (81%) but weaknesses in care delivery (48%) and logistics (35%). The results component scored 88%, which was considered good, with significant improvements in care (89%), surveillance (96%), diagnostic efficiency (78%), and satisfaction with management (96%). Conclusion Guinea's response systems for epidemic-prone diseases show average performance with encouraging outcomes. However, structural and procedural gaps persist. Strengthening human resources, timely diagnostics, continuity of care for severe cases, and sustainable financing are essential to improve future epidemic management.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.