| dc.description.abstract | The context of this study draws immensely from the global human and animal disease reporting perspectives, guided by the tripartite frameworks of WHO, FAO and OIE through their tools of IHR, EMPRES and PVS respectively down to the Pan African AU-IBAR, the East African Regional platform mandated by two Regional Economic Communities (RECs): IGAD and EAC. It further hinges on the premise that the success of disease reporting from the field depends on the competences to recognize clinical manifestations of the disease being reported, in addition to the use of diagnostic laboratories as key support to the diagnostic process.
The high rejection of disease reports collected using EMA-i tool by field data collectors from Karamoja region of Uganda was the main objective of this study. The study purpose was to assess the impact of level of education and profession on the knowledge of EMA-i protocols. Forty one (41) data collectors from Karamoja, comprising of CAHWs, veterinary paraprofessionals and veterinarians were purposively selected and administered structured questionnaires for quantitative data analysis. In addition, a total of 18 key informants’ interviews including all the 7 Karamoja DVOs, 3 Karamoja based Veterinarians; 3 Officials from NADDEC/MAAIF, 3 paraprofessionals and 2 CAHWs leaders from Karamoja. In addition, 2 FGDs were held in Kotido district.
The results from analysis of quantitative data, targeting education level, found out that out of the 41 reporters, only 1 primary reporter with education was knowledgeable while 5 were unknowledgeable; for Secondary education, 6 were knowledgeable and 4 unknowledgeable, whereas Diploma holders 6 were knowledgeable, and 1 not knowledgeable; while all the 18 University degree graduates were knowledgeable in most areas of the EMA-i protocol. Whereas for profession, 10 CAHWs were not knowledgeable and 9 knowledgeable while the 22 paraprofessionals and veterinarians were found to be knowledgeable in providing overall information on disease reporting using EMA-i.
The information from the quantitative and qualitative data was triangulated with the results of EMA-i data from Karamoja during July 2016 to September 2017 that showed 45% of disease reports were invalidated. Basing on saturated opinion by KIs, it was established that most data by CAHWs are invalidated due to wrong diagnosis, indicative of their inadequacy in knowledge of the EMA-i tool, thus leading to the concluding that the level of education, is the main factor to quality of disease data. | en_US |
