Knowledge, attitude, and practices with respect to disease surveillance among urban private practitioners in Pune, India

Article English OPEN
Phalkey, Revati K. ; Kroll, Mareike ; Dutta, Sayani ; Shukla, Sharvari ; Butsch, Carsten ; Bharucha, Erach ; Kraas, Frauke (2016)
  • Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
  • Journal: Global Health Action, volume 8 (issn: 1654-9716, eissn: 1654-9880)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC4592845, doi: 10.3402/gha.v8.28413
  • Subject: knowledge-attitude-practice; private practitioners; disease surveillance; barriers and facilitators | Original Article | barriers and facilitators | 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 - files: To access the supplementary material for this article, please see Supplementary files under ‘Article Tools’
  • References (30)
    30 references, page 1 of 3

    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:// 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: 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.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark